JOHNSON
v.
CITY OF BELLE GLADE, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Johnson sought an injunction to prevent Belle Glade and Pahokee from arresting and prosecuting him for operating a taxi, claiming he operated only casually or incidentally within the cities and was being selectively harassed. The court denied the injunction, holding that equity is inappropriate for addressing selective enforcement where the ordinance itself is not challenged and monetary damages provide an adequate legal remedy.
The court denied the petition for a temporary injunction, holding that injunctive relief against enforcement of a municipal ordinance should be granted only with extreme caution and is generally inappropriate where the petitioner seeks to prevent selective enforcement rather than challenge the ordinance's validity, and where monetary damages provide an adequate legal remedy.
[1] Injunctive relief against the enforcement of a municipal ordinance should be granted only with extreme caution.
[2] Injunctive relief is generally granted when the validity of an ordinance is challenged or a complete injunction against enforcement is sought.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although injunctive relief against the enforcement of a municipal ordinance may be granted in a proper case, it should be granted only with extreme caution.”
Establishes the high standard for obtaining injunctive relief against municipal ordinance enforcement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was repeatedly arrested and prosecuted for operating a taxi in Belle Glade and Pahokee. Johnson claimed he operated only casually or incidenta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Temporary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a complaint to enjoin the cities of Belle Glade and Pahokee from arresting and prosecuting the petitioner for operating a taxi within the Said cities. No attack is made on the validity of the ordinances in question, but it is alleged that defendants are harassing petitioner by repeatedly arresting' him despite the fact that he is only “casually” or “incidentally” operating within the cities.
*190There does not appear to be any substantial difference between the parties as to what the law is: defendants concede that if in fact petitioner has only been casually or incidentally operating within the cities he should not be prosecuted; however, they contend that petitioner is primarily operating within the municipalities, and his protestations to the contrary amount to a subterfuge.
Petitioner contends that he is threatened with irreparable injury because of expenses incurred in defending himself against these charges.
Although injunctive relief against the enforcement of a municipal ordinance may be granted in a proper case, it should be granted only with extreme caution. Generally, injunctive relief is granted where the validity of the ordinance itself is challenged or where the petitioner is otherwise seeking a complete injunction against enforcement. Where, as here, petitioner seeks to prevent selective enforcement of an ordinance, injunctive relief — at least at this stage — would be ill-advised. Furthermore, petitioner is claiming his damages to be in monetary terms. This being the case, if he has a cause of action against defendants for false arrest, abuse of process, or what have you, his remedy would be in law and not in equity.
It is thereupon ordered that petitioner’s petition for temporary injunction is denied.
See 17 Fla. Jur., Injunctions, §59, especially cases cited in the supplement.