STIRLING MUSIC CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LEON R. FEILBACH ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
This case involves an appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the injunction.
No, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the temporary injunction because the appellant failed to make a clear showing of such abuse.
“The granting or denying of the temporary injunction is generally within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless a clear showing has been made that there was an abuse.”
This quote establishes the standard of review for decisions on temporary injunctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStirling Music Co., Inc., a business that rents and services coin-operated machines, sought a temporary injunction against appellees for allegedly eng…
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 Unfair Trade Practices cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon interlocutory appeal, the appellant seeks review of an order of the lower court denying a temporary injunction.
The appellant is in the business of renting and servicing coin-operated machines such as juke boxes, pinball machines, etc. The nature of the temporary relief sought was to enjoin the appellees from certain allegedly unfair trade practices which have resulted in the loss of customers of the appellant. It is the appellant’s contention that a temporary injunction should have been granted and that the denial of same constituted an abuse of discretion by the lower court.
The granting or denying of the temporary injunction is generally within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless a clear showing has been made that there was an abuse. The nature of a temporary injunction is such that it is granted sparingly and cautiously, taking into consideration the beneficial results on one hand and the probable detriment on the other. See Roberts v. Peacock, 141 Fla. 214, 193 So. 548; Clark v. Kreidt, 145 Fla. 1, 199 So. 333. Undoubtedly the chancellor below considered these elements in arriving at his conclusion to deny temporary injunctive relief. No showing has been made, except his denial, of the abuse of discretion by the lower court and it follows that the order appealed should be and it is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J„ and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…d the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear showing is made that there was an abuse. E.g., Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Stirling Music Co. v. Feilbach, 100 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). In exercising its discretion, the court is guided by established rules and principles of equity jurisprudence, in view of the particular facts presented in the case. Jennings, 360 So. 2d at 435; Muss v. City of Miami Beach, 3…
-
N. Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., 114 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…must have considered possible future pollution and its effect on the health and welfare of the surrounding property owners. See Roberts v. Peacock, 141 Fla. 214, 193 So. 548; Clark v. Kreidt, 145 Fla. 1, 199 So. 333; Davis v. Goodwin, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 75. The obvious purpose of a temporary injunction is to maintain a status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending a final determination of the cause. As the name would imply, a temporary injunction is not conclusive and the provisions of same m…
-
Robustiano Puga & Medmolds, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…unction enforcing, pendente lite, a so-called “non-competitive” agreement validated by Section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Northwestern National Ins. Co. v. Green-spun, 330 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Stirling Music Co., Inc. v. Feilbach, 100 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Contrary to their contentions on appeal, the showing in the record that the covenant in question was being directly violated and that “from the nature of the act or the circumstances [the breach] cannot be readily, adequately, an…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark v. Kreidt, 145 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1940)
- Roberts v. Peacock, 141 Fla. 214 (Fla. 1940)