OKEELANTA SUGAR REFINERY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC 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.
The appellate court affirmed a temporary restraining order against a sugar refinery, finding that the lower court did not err in issuing the order based on the complaint and evidence presented.
No, the lower court did not err in issuing the temporary restraining order. The appellate court found that the order should be affirmed.
“This appeal, interlocutory in character, is from this temporary restraining order.”
Identifies the nature of the appeal and the order being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Flood Control District filed a complaint seeking injunctions against Okeelanta Sugar Refinery, Inc. The lower court held a hearing for a temporary…
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 Irreparable Damage cases and more on FLexlaw
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, appellee, filed a complaint against Okeelanta Sugar Refinery, Inc., appellant, seeking temporary and permanent injunctions and other relief. Hearing for a temporary injunction was had; thereupon the chancellor entered an order temporarily restraining the defendant-appellant, its employees, agents, and contractors and all persons acting for or upon its behalf, from entering upon certain described property for the purpose of constructing any dike, levee, fill, roadway, canal, or other structure and from continuation of defendant’s present dragline operations within the Flood Plain of the St. Johns River, as described by Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, as amended. This appeal, interlocutory in character, is from this temporary restraining order.
This appeal does not involve the validity of any law or legislative act, under which the appellee proceeded. The appeal comprehends two assignments of error directed, respectively, (1) to failure of the complaint *563to allege impending irreparable damage or immediate injury and (2) absence at the hearing of facts to show impending irreparable damage or immediate injury, so that the court’s finding was contrary to the evidence presented. The temporary restraining order under review should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and KANNER and SHANNON, JJ., concur.