STATE OF FLORIDA, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
BRADENTON GROUP, INC., 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.
The State of Florida appealed a judgment awarding damages to Bradenton Group, Inc. for a wrongful temporary injunction obtained in 1995 without a bond that shut down the company's bingo hall operations. The court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the State's claims of sovereign and prosecutorial immunity because the State invoked the court's equitable jurisdiction and cannot use immunity as a sword to escape liability for an erroneous injunction.
The court held that sovereign immunity is not available to shield the State from liability for damages caused by an erroneous temporary injunction when the State invoked the court's equitable jurisdiction. The State cannot use immunity as a sword to escape the consequences of its wrongfully entered temporary injunction.
[1] The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of issues previously decided in the same case.
[2] Sovereign immunity does not shield a governmental entity from liability for damages caused by a wrongfully obtained temporary injunction.
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“Sovereign immunity is a 'shield' and not a 'sword that may be used by the state when it invokes a court's equitable jurisdiction to enjoin a party and the injunction later turns out to be erroneous and causes damages to be incurred.”
Establishes the core legal principle that the State cannot use sovereign immunity to avoid liability for wrongful injunctions when it initiates equitable proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1995, the State of Florida obtained a temporary injunction without posting a bond that shuttered Bradenton Group, Inc.'s bingo hall operations thro…
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 Damages For Wrongful Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
*637ON MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION
Granting the State of Florida’s motion for written opinion, we withdraw our previous per curiam decision, and affirm with opinion as follows.
The State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, appeals from a final judgment against it for damages to Appellees flowing from the State’s wrongful temporary injunction obtained in 1995 without a bond, which shuttered Appellees’ bingo hall operations and related businesses throughout Florida. Most of the issues raised by the State have already been decided against it in Bradenton Group, Inc. v. Department of Legal Affairs, 701 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Department of Legal Affairs v. Bradenton Group, Inc., 727 So.2d 199 (Fla.1998), and Bradenton Group, Inc. v. State, 970 So.2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). As such, these issues are established law of the case, and we decline to address them again. Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105 (Fla.2001).
The only arguable issues remaining in this appeal are the State’s claims of sovereign and prosecutorial immunity. To the extent that these defenses were not waived for failure to raise them in multiple prior appeals, Airac, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance Company, 330 So.2d 467 (Fla.1976),1 we find that the immunity defenses are not available to the State under Provident Management Corporation v. City of Treasure Island, 796 So.2d 481 (Fla.2001). As explained in Provident:
Sovereign immunity is a ‘shield’ and not a ‘sword that may be used by the state when it invokes a court’s equitable jurisdiction to enjoin a part/ and the injunction later turns out to be erroneous and causes damages to be incurred. Therefore, unless the Legislature has expressly limited the liability of a government entity from the consequences of an improperly entered temporary injunction, courts have the inherent power to either require the posting of a bond or, if the bond requirement is waived, to require the governmental entity to pay damages if the temporary injunction is subsequently reversed.
The conclusion we reach provides the optimal balance between the interests of government entities and the interests of the wrongfully enjoined litigants. A governmental entity seeking injunctive relief has the option not to seek a temporary injunction but to wait and obtain a permanent injunction after a full presentation of evidence and a determination of entitlement to the relief. The government entity has the further choice to attempt to obtain the temporary injunction with a bond so as to cap damages in the event the injunction is wrongfully entered....
Id. at 487 (internal citations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ„ and ZAMBRANO, R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2009)
- Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 330 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1976)
- Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City OF Treasure Island, 796 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2001)
- Dep't OF Legal Affairs v. Bradenton Grp., Inc., 727 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1998)
- Bradenton Grp., Inc. v. Dep't of Legal Affairs, 701 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Offord v. State, 970 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Bradenton Grp., Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)