DALE E. CUNNINGHAM, DANTE DINO AND EDWARD HINES, APPELLANTS,
v.
HESTER DOZER, AS CITY CLERK OF CITY OF OPA LOCKA, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Municipal officers sought to enjoin recall proceedings against them. The trial court dissolved a temporary injunction that had halted the recall election, and the officers appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the temporary injunction. The appellants failed to carry their burden of demonstrating abuse of discretion, and therefore the order of dissolution is affirmed.
“the granting or dissolving of temporary injunctions is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of a chancellor, and the chancellor's action in this regard will not be interfered with by appellate courts unless there is a clear showing that the chancellor abused his discretion”
Establishes the standard of review for temporary injunction decisions—abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Cunningham, Dino, and Hines were municipal officers who obtained a temporary injunction halting recall proceedings against them following a…
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 Dissolution Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
By this interlocutory appeal, the appellants seek review of an order dissolving a temporary injunction. The appellants, as plaintiffs, secured a temporary injunction upon an emergency hearing enjoining recall proceedings against the appellants as municipal officers. After the original complaint had been amended and responsive pleadings had been filed, a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction was presented to the chancellor who, after hearing argument of counsel and having reviewed certain testimony as to whether or not the affidavit [upon which the recall election was based] was properly sworn to, entered an order dissolving the original injunction restraining the recall proceedings.
The granting or dissolving of temporary injunctions is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of a chancellor, and the chancellor’s action in this regard will not be interfered with by appellate courts unless there is a clear showing that the chancellor abused his discretion. See: Albury v. Plumbers Local Union No. 519, A. F. of L.-C.I.O., Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 647; North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land *106Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 347; Lane v. Clein, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 15. It is not the prerogative of appellate courts to substitute their judgment for that of a chancellor. It is for the appellate court to de-■rtermine whether or not, under the circum-stances presented by the record on appeal, “the chancellor committed an abuse of dis- ■ cretion in dissolving the injunction. Following a careful review of the record on appeal, briefs and oral argument of counsel, the appellant has failed to carry the burden of demonstrating that the chancellor abused his discretion and, therefore, the order of dissolution is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
United Sanitation Servs. OF Hillsborough, Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 302 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…discretion of the trial court, McMullen v. County of Pinellas, 90 Fla. 398, 106 So. 73 (1925); and that the exercise of that discretion will not be reversed on appeal without a clear showing of its abuse. E. g., Cunningham v. Dozer, Fla.App.3d 1963, 159 So. 2d 105. Not only do we find no abuse of that discretion here; it is likely that a contrary ruling, granting the temporary injunction, would itself have been erroneous and reversible. It is well established that one of the primary bases for the exercise of…
-
Alachua Cnty. v. Lewis OIL Co., Inc., 516 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…ourt erred in granting a temporary injunction. Wide judicial discretion rests in the circuit court in granting or dissolving temporary injunctions, and an appellate court will not interfere where no abuse of discretion appears. Cunningham v. Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). After a thorough review of the briefs and record on appeal, we find that Alachua County has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in rendering the order appealed. AFFIRMED. MILLS and SHIVERS, JJ., con…
-
U.S. Mfg. & Galvanizing Corp. v. Renfrow, 592 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…87). However, an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in dissolving an injunction where no abuse of discretion appears. Alachua County v. Lewis Oil Company Inc., 516 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Cunningham v. Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Executive Uniform Rental, Inc. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co. of Florida, 265 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA) cert. denied, 270 So. 2d 742 (Fla.1972). In this ease, the trial court heard evidence and denied the dissolution of the tempor…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N. Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., 114 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Lane v. Reubin J. Clein, 137 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Albury v. Plumbers Local Union NO. 519, 100 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)