ANTHONY P. LAROSE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
A.K., APPELLEE
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 University of Tampa and a faculty member appealed an order enforcing a temporary injunction against the university. The appellate court reversed, holding that the enforcement order improperly granted permanent injunctive relief by requiring the university to drop a course from the student's record and recalculate her grade, which exceeded the scope of preliminary relief.
The court reversed the enforcement order, holding that it improperly expanded the temporary injunction by granting the same relief that would constitute a final permanent injunction. The order exceeded preliminary injunctive relief by requiring not merely removal of the plagiarism charge but complete elimination of the course from the student's record and grade recalculation.
[1] A trial court improperly grants permanent injunctive relief through an order enforcing a temporary injunction when the relief granted goes beyond the scope of the initial…
[2] An order enforcing a temporary injunction cannot require a university to "drop" a course and recalculate a student's academic record as if the course was never taken, as…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A preliminary injunction is improperly entered when it bypasses the procedures for a permanent injunction and preliminarily grants the same relief that would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction.”
Establishes the legal standard for improper preliminary injunctive relief that grants permanent relief prematurely.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.K., a student at the University of Tampa, was found to have committed plagiarism in course CRM 321. The trial court had previously granted a tempora…
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 Permanent Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthony P. LaRose and the University of Tampa appeal a nonfinal order granting A.K.’s motion to enforce temporary injunction. We reverse.
The order on appeal arises from the ongoing proceedings described more completely in this court’s opinion for case number 2D08-1996, issued concurrently with this opinion. In that case we affirmed the initial order granting a temporary injunction, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings and that the relief granted was appropriate in a preliminary injunction. That order prevented the University of Tampa from “using, enforcing, publishing, promulgating, or otherwise employing” its finding that A.K., a student, committed “plagiarism” and required the University of Tampa to temporarily remove evidence of the plagiarism finding and its impact upon A.K.’s grade from her file.
A.K. subsequently filed a motion to enforce that temporary injunction, claiming that the University had not complied with the trial court’s order. The court granted the motion as follows:
*78ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Temporary Injunction and for Related Relief is granted to the extent that The University of Tampa is ordered to cause the Plaintiffs academic record to have no reference to the course CRM 321 using the procedure of “dropping” the course, so that her academic record and transcript will be recalculated without reference to those course hours or grade.
“A preliminary injunction is improperly entered when it bypasses the procedures for a permanent injunction and preliminarily grants the same relief that would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction.” Charlotte County v. Vetter, 863 So.2d 465, 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). This order improperly expands upon the initial temporary injunction to provide A.K. with permanent injunctive relief. It requires the University of Tampa not only to remove the charge of plagiarism from her record but expressly requires the University to “drop” the course and recalculate her grade as if she had never taken the course in the first place. There is no further injunctive relief the trial court could grant A.K. in a subsequent permanent injunction. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Biscayne Park, LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 34 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…aw; (2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent; and (4) the entry of the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See LaRose v. A.K., 32 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). On the first requirement, Wal-Mart demonstrated irreparable injury because third parties’ use of the open wells would exacerbate groundwater contamination of the land, making Wal-Mart liable for past and future contamination. Wa…
-
Gulf Coast Commercial, LLC. v. KOS Corp., 351 So. 3d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…njunction and preliminarily grants the same relief that would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction." Nazia, 275 So. 3d at 706 (quoting Charlotte County v. Vetter, 863 So. 2d 465, 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); see also LaRose v. A.K., 32 So. 3d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). In Counts 2, 4, and 6 of their complaint, the Property Owners requested that the trial court enter an injunction requiring Hybridge to prepare and deliver a final accounting and provide certain documentation to the Property O…
-
The Univ. OF Miami v. Anscher, 34 So. 3d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…aw; (2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent; and (4) the entry of the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See LaRose v. A.K., 32 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Here, because the student did not adequately establish the elements for a temporary injunction, the trial judge improperly granted the temporary injunction. Accordingly, we reverse the temporary injunction. Reversed and reman…
Authorities Cited
- Charlotte Cnty. v. Richard Vetter for the Charlotte Cnty. Park of Commerce, LLC, 863 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)