JAY R. SINGER
v.
NOREEN SINGER AND SALLY CHAZAN
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 trial court's decision to deny, dissolve, or modify an injunction will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
[1] A trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and an appellate court will not disturb such a decision absent a cl…
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 trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court's decision.”
Standard of review for injunction decisions
Jay Russell Singer sought to continue an injunction that would prevent Noreen Singer from encumbering her real property. The trial court denied the co…
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 Appellate Review Of Injunctions cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; G. Joseph Curley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2018-CA-004117-XXXX-MB.
Jay Russell Singer, Lantana, pro se. Noreen Singer, Boca Raton, pro se. PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of a continuation of an injunction preventing appellee from encumbering her real property. A “trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court’s decision.” Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Jackson v. Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). We dismiss this appeal as to the remaining issues raised as they are not within the scope of our jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. WARNER, KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Showcase Realty, Inc. v. Whittaker, 559 F.2d 1165 (9th Cir. 1977)…een clearly established under Washington law, despite public policy arguments to the contrary, that the requirements of the Washington Statute of Frauds cannot be circumvented on the ground of fraud by the seller. Gertz v. Schaeffer, 38 Wash.2d 639, 231 P. 2d 273 (1951); American, Inc. v. Bishop, 29 Wash.2d 95, 185 P. 2d 722 (1947). As noted by the Supreme Court of Washington in Forland v. Boyum, 53 Wash. 421, 102 P. 34 (1909), “Such contracts are held void by force of the statute, and the rights of the part…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Ladon Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)