DURABLE UNIFORM AND LINEN SUPPLY CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS CORRE UNIFORM AND LINEN SUPPLY, AND DOING BUSINESS AS APEX LINEN SERVICE, APPELLANT,
v.
SANITARY LINEN SERVICE CO., A FLORIDA 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.
Durable Uniform appealed interlocutory orders granting a temporary injunction against interference with contractual relationships and denying discovery and joinder of defenses. The Third District affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the injunction and no error in the discovery denial.
The court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion, and affirmed the denial of discovery and joinder motions. The court noted the complaint, while capable of improvement, was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charges of interference.
“it appears sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charges against him”
The court held that the complaint, despite being capable of more detailed allegations, was sufficient under applicable law to give the defendant notice of the tortious interference claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDurable Uniform (defendant in trial court) was enjoined from interfering with contractual relationships between Sanitary Linen Service and its custome…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Injunctions cases and more on FLexlaw
These interlocutory appeals relate to the propriety, in Case No. 65-797, of a temporary injunction restraining the appellant [defendant in the trial court] from interfering with contractual relationships between the plaintiff-appellee and its customers; and in Case No. 65-798 to the propriety of an order entered in the same cause denying certain discovery proceedings to the defendant and denying its motion to join certain defenses. These cases were consolidated for oral presentation.
We have examined the briefs, appeal papers and appendices and fail to find error in the orders specified in the notices of appeal. The appellant has preserved for review the sufficiency of the complaint. It is apparent that it could he improved upon by more detailed allegations as to factual matters constituting the interference alleged. However, under the authorities, it appears sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charges against him. See: Miami Laundry Company v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 519; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 464; 30 Am.Jur., Interference, § 42, p. 84. Elementary in determining the propriety of a temporary injunction is the necessity for the appellant to show an abuse of discretion in its entry. See: North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 347; Curtis Pools, Inc., v. Fulton, Fla.App. 1959, 115 So.2d 442; Cunningham v. Dozer, Fla.App.1963, 159 So.2d 105. As to the temporary injunction, we find no abuse of discretion. See: Miami Laundry Company v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., supra; Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Uniform and Towel Supply of Florida, Inc., supra. But, this opinion is not to be considered as approving the breadth of same as a permanent injunction in the event the chancellor should be disposed to render such upon final hearing.
We have examined the other points urged by the appellant and find no error in the actions of the chancellor complained of.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the orders here under review are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. Tamayo, 374 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Northwestern National Insurance Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Baboun v. Royal Atlas Corp., 287 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Durable Uniform and Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., 183 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).…
-
AAA Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Morse Taxi & Baggage Transfer, Inc., 204 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…Inc. v. Feilbach, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 75; North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 347; Cunningham v. Dozer, Fla.App.1963, 159 So. 2d 105; Durable Uniform and Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 226. Examining the limited record in light of this principle, we find no error in the discretion exercised by the chancellor in ordering the injunction, nor has error been made to appear in permitting the intervention. Hawkins v. Perry, 146 Fla. 766, 1…
-
Brake v. Elton J. Gissendanner, 206 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…Inc. v. Feilbach, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 75; North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 347; Cunningham v. Dozer, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 105; Durable Uniform and Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 226. The order appealed from must be and the same is hereby Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Cunningham v. Hester Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Curtis Pools, Inc. v. Fulton, 115 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Miami Laundry Co. v. Sanitary Linen Serv. Co., 131 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Neway Unif. & Towel Supply OF Fla., Inc., 166 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)