TAKIRA T. HINSON
v.
DETRICK L. HUSSEY
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 party seeking to dissolve or modify an injunction must demonstrate a change in circumstances such that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists and continuation would serve no valid purpose.
[1] To obtain dissolution or modification of an existing injunction, a party must establish a material change in circumstances such that the factual predicate for the origina…
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“the movant must show 'that there has been a change in circumstances since the injunction was entered' such 'that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.'”
Standard for modifying or dissolving an injunction, cited from Trice v. Trice
Takira T. Hinson appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County concerning an injunction issued against Detrick L. Hussey. The appellee failed…
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 Modification Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. 1 Appellee was precluded from filing an answer brief after failing to heed this Court’s order directing him to file same within a specified period of time. Affirmed. See Trice v. Trice, 267 So. 3d 496, 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“[T]he movant must show ‘that there has been a change in circumstances since the injunction was entered’ such ‘that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction would serve no valid purpose.’” (quoting Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So. 3d 852, 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014))); Alkhoury v. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641, 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (same); Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692, 692–93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“The trial court has broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and, unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court’s decision.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haifa Y. Alkhoury v. Basem J. Alkhoury, 54 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Spaulding v. Shane, 150 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Trice v. Trice, 267 So. 3d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)