NORTH DADE WATER CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
ADKEN LAND CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
North Dade Water Co. and the City of North Miami Beach appealed a temporary injunction preventing them from discharging sewage effluent into lakes on Adken Land Co.'s property. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that the chancellor did not abuse discretion in granting it to maintain the status quo pending final determination of the pollution claims.
The court held that the chancellor did not abuse discretion in granting the temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is discretionary and will not be disturbed absent clear abuse; the chancellor properly considered the health and welfare effects of potential pollution alongside the public benefit of sanitary services.
“The granting or denying of a temporary injunction is generally within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse.”
Establishes the standard of review for temporary injunctions and the high bar for overturning the chancellor's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of North Miami Beach operated a sewage treatment plant adjoining Myrtle Lake and discharged effluent into that lake, which flowed through a c…
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 Status Quo cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee-plaintiff instituted an action for temporary and permanent injunction to restrain the appellants-defendants from draining effluent into two lakes situated on appellee’s property. The chancellor entered a temporary injunction so restraining the appellants, and from this order an interlocutory appeal was taken.
Appellant, City of North Miami Beach, is the owner and operator of a water supply and sewage collection plant, purchased from appellant, North Dade Water Company. Appellee is the owner of property upon which two land-locked lakes are located. This property was acquired from North Dade Land Company, an affiliate of the appellant, North Dade Water Company. The sewage treatment plant adjoins Myrtle Lake, and effluent from this plant is discharged into Myrtle Lake, which in turn, discharges through a culvert into the two *348lakes situated on appellee’s property. The appellee alleged that the discharge into the lakes situated on its property is resulting in the pollution of said lakes. Appellee offered the testimony of a chemist, who had analyzed samples of water taken from each lake, that these samples showed sewage bacteria and further, that there was a strong odor in the area of Myrtle Lake. Other testimony was offered that the culvert connecting Myrtle Lake with the two lakes on appellee’s property was not present approximately three or four weeks prior to the testimony.
The appellants’ brief raises three principal points, i. e., (1) that the chancellor erred in granting an injunction which changes the status quo without proof of irreparable injury; (2) that the chancellor erred in refusing to take into consideration the inconvenience of denying sanitary services to a great number of people, while protecting the relatively less inconvenience of odor to the surrounding neighborhood; and (3) that the chancellor erred in granting temporary injunction which, in effect, disposes of all of the issues of the case.
■ The granting or' denying of a temporary injunction is generally within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse. It has not been made to appear, in this instance, that the chancellor abused his discretion in granting the temporary injunction. See Albury v. Plumbers Local Union No. 519, A.F. of L.-C.I.O., Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 647. 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. In considering the application for temporary injunctive relief by the appellee, the chancellor necessarily 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 may be merged in or dissolved by the final decree, dependent upon a determination of the issues made by the complaint and answer. See Smith v. Housing Authority of Daytona Beach, 148 Fla. 195, 3 So.2d 880; 28 Am.Jur., Injunction, § 12 (1959).
Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1975)…f may well have a valid option, and its contentions as to the optionee’s performance upon exercise of the option may be valid. The purpose of a temporary injunction being to maintain the status quo, North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., [Fla.App.] 114 So. 2d 347, it would seem appropriate here because there is a myriad of beneficial aspects to the ownership of this stock which could be lost to plaintiff or compromised should the stock be disposed of or otherwise affected., during the pendency of this litiga…
-
Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 212 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…upon the merits, and no irreparable damage has been shown, we reverse that portion of the order appealed granting temporary injunction against Tamiami. Reversed. REED and OWEN, JJ., concur. . North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 347. . Stoner v. South Peninsula Zoning Commission, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 831; Egan v. City of Miami, 1938, 130 Fla. 465, 178 So. 132. .Daniel v. Williams, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 640; see also Professional Golfers Ass’n v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., Fla…
-
United Sanitation Servs. OF Hillsborough, Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 302 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…estraining the enforcement of a municipal ordinance, e. g., Orange City v. Thayer, 45 Fla. 502, 34 So. 573 (1903) temporary restraining orders or injunctions should be very cautiously granted, North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.3d 1959, 114 So. 2d 347; 17 Fla.Jur., Injunctions, § 12, pp. 381-382; that the determination of such an application is primarily within the [*438] discretion of the trial court, McMullen v. County of Pinellas, 90 Fla. 398, 106 So. 73 (1925); and that the exercise of that d…
Previewing 3 of 17 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)
- Smith v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Daytona Beach, 148 Fla. 195 (Fla. 1941)
- Roberts v. Peacock, 141 Fla. 214 (Fla. 1940)
- Albury v. Plumbers Local Union NO. 519, 100 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Davis v. Goodwin, 100 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Stirling Music Co., Inc. v. Feilbach, 100 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)