NORTH FLORIDA WOMEN'S HEALTH & COUNSELING SERVICE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ATTORNEY GENERAL PAMELA JO BONDI, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DR. FRANK H. FARMER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SURGEON GENERAL, AND FLORIDA BOARD OF MEDICINE, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the state defendants, holding that the plaintiff lacked a justiciable controversy and failed to demonstrate a clear legal right necessary for either declaratory or injunctive relief.
A plaintiff seeking declaratory or injunctive relief must demonstrate a justiciable controversy and a clear legal right to the relief requested, and summary judgment is appropriate when these elements are absent as a matter of law.
[1] To obtain injunctive relief under Florida law, a party must establish irreparable harm, a clear legal right, an inadequate remedy at law, and consideration of the public…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 party seeking an injunction under general Florida case law must demonstrate: 1) irreparable harm; 2) a clear legal right; 3) an inadequate remedy at law; [and] 4) consideration of the public interest.”
Court stating the four-part test for injunctive relief under Florida law
North Florida Women's Health & Counseling Service appealed a circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Florida, the Attorney …
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 Clear Legal Right cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff appeals the circuit court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff raises several arguments, only one of which merits a brief discussion. The plaintiff argues that the order disposed of only its claims for declaratory judgment and failed to address its claims for injunctive relief. We conclude that the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the disposition of the claims for declaratory judg*875ment — that there is no justiciable controversy — also showed without genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff does not have a clear legal right to the relief requested in the claims for injunctive relief. See Gomez v. Fradin, 41 So.3d 1068, 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“A party seeking an injunction under general Florida case law must demonstrate: 1) irreparable harm; 2) a clear legal right; 3) an inadequate remedy at law; [and] 4) consideration of the public interest.”) (citation and quotations omitted). Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent it subsumes both the claims for declaratory judgment and the claims for injunctive relief.
Affirmed.
WARNER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ„ concur.