HARRY M. JOHANSON AND DANIEL VASQUEZ, JOINT OWNERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSE MANUEL INSUA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS AGENT FOR THE DOMINICAN AIR FORCE, A DIVISION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, AVIATION INVESTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A AIR INTERNATIONAL, DOMINICAN AIR FORCE, A DIVISION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, MERTICE A. MADDEN AND HARRY R. PLAYFORD, AS TRUSTEES OF MADDEN & PLAYFORD AIRCRAFT, INC., A/K/A MADDEN & PLAYFORD AIRCRAFT CORP., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves an interlocutory appeal concerning the increase of a temporary injunction bond. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's orders because the appellants failed to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate reversible error.
The appellate court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate reversible error or an abuse of discretion by the lower court.
“We have read the briefs of the respective parties and have examined the record brought before the court, but are unable to determine the issues which the appellants propose, namely, the alleged error of the court in increasing the injunction bond, denying a petition for rehearing of such order, and in dissolving the temporary injunction.”
This quote establishes the court's inability to review the merits of the appeal due to an insufficient record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, Harry M. Johanson and Daniel Vasquez, were required by the lower court to increase a temporary injunction bond from $12,000 to $20,000…
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 Chancellor'S Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal from two orders in chancery by which the appellants were required to increase a temporary .injunction bond from $12,000 to $20,000.
We have read the briefs of the respective parties and have examined the record brought before the court, but are unable to determine the issues which the appellants propose, namely, the alleged error. of the court in increasing the injunction bond, denying a petition for rehearing of such order, and in dissolving the temporary injunction.1 The appellants have failed to bring before us sufficient portions of the record that would enable us to determine whether or not the orders of which they complain were erroneous or an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion.
On the basis of the record before us, the appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error or that the chancellor exceeded his authority or abused his discretion, absent which the orders should be and are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Claridy v. Claridy, 216 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. On the basis of the record before us, appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. Johanson v. Insua, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 247. WALDEN, C. J., REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.…