GAINESVILLE REGIONAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY
v.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, BARTON
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.
A petition for a writ of injunction to prevent a special election must demonstrate impending harm that is real and ascertainable, not merely speculative future harm.
[1] An extraordinary writ of injunction to preserve the status quo pending appellate review requires a showing of impending harm that is real and ascertainable, not merely sp…
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“Rather than speculative future harm, GRUA must demonstrate impending harm that is 'real and ascertainable' if the writ is not given.”
Court explaining the standard for obtaining an extraordinary writ of injunction
GRUA sought to enjoin the City of Gainesville from holding a special election on November 4, 2025, to approve a charter amendment that would dissolve …
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 Mootness Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2025-2062 _____________________________
GAINESVILLE REGIONAL
UTILITIES AUTHORITY,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, and KIM A. BARTON, in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections for Alachua County, Florida,
Respondents. _____________________________
Petition for Writ of Injunction—Original Proceeding.
August 25, 2025
PER CURIAM.
The court considers the petition as one for a writ of injunction. The Florida Constitution authorizes us to give “writs necessary to the complete exercise of [our] jurisdiction.” Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const. Gainesville Regional Utilities Authority (“GRUA”) asserts that the writ is immediately necessary to preserve the status quo while this court considers the appeal GRUA filed in Case No. 1D2025-1364. According to GRUA, if we do not issue the writ to the City of Gainesville and enjoin it either from holding a special
2 election set for November 4, 2025, to approve the proposed charter amendment set forth in the City’s Ordinance No. 2025-416 or from implementing that amendment if it is approved and dissolving GRUA; the legal challenge to the final order on review in that appeal will become moot.* An appellate court has at its disposal a writ of injunction to preserve the status quo and aid in the exercise of its jurisdiction. See Cohen v. L’Engle, 5 So. 235, 239 (Fla. 1888); cf. Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Bldg. Inst., Inc., 339 So. 3d 1070, 1075 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (explaining that the “constitutional writ of injunction . . . functions only to give interim procedural relief” to maintain the status quo, which “is not the same as a remedy”). Any effect GRUA asserts the charter amendment might have on our ability to fully exercise our jurisdiction to decide the appeal in Case No. 1D2025-1364—if it even passes in November—is, at this point, clearly speculative. The writ it seeks, though, is extraordinary and issued only rarely; GRUA must demonstrate a significant and immediate need for the writ. Rather than speculative future harm, GRUA must demonstrate impending harm that is “real and ascertainable” if the writ is not given. Wal– Mart Stores E., L.P. v. Endicott, 81 So. 3d 486, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); cf. Shivery v. Streeper, 3 So. 865, 867 (Fla. 1888) (“If the injury be doubtful, eventual, or contingent, equity will not enjoin. . . .” (internal quotation and citation omitted)). On its face, the current petition fails to make out the required showing of need.
DISMISSED.
WINOKUR, TANENBAUM, and TREADWELL, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
* GRUA could have sought the interim writ by motion filed in that pending appeal. This procedural distinction, though, makes no difference in how we consider the request.
3
David A. Theriaque, S. Brent Spain, and Benjamin R. Kelley of Theriaque & Spain, Tallahassee; S. Scott Walker, Kiersten N. Ballou, and Danielle C. Adams of Folds Walker, LLC, Gainesville; Leonard E. Ireland, Jr. of Clayton-Johnston, P.A., Gainesville; Derek D. Perry of Gainesville Regional Utilities, Gainesville, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shivery v. Streeper, 24 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1888)
- Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. v. Shelia Endicott and her husband Dan Endicott, 81 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)