UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MINNIE LEE BROWN, 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.
This case involves an insurance company's attempt to halt arbitration proceedings by seeking a temporary injunction, which was denied by the lower court. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no abuse of discretion.
No, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying the temporary injunction.
“The issuance of an injunction lies within the discretion of the chancellor.”
Establishes the standard of review for injunctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe United States Fire Insurance Company sought a temporary injunction to stop arbitration proceedings related to an uninsured motorist coverage claim…
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 Arbitration Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, by this interlocutory appeal, seeks reversal of the chancellor’s order denying its request for temporary injunction to enjoin arbitration proceedings under a policy of insurance providing for uninsured motorist coverage. Appellant contends that since it had instituted suit for declaratory decree to determine whether or not it was in fact liable under the policy to the insured, it was error for the chancellor to deny its application to enjoin the arbitration proceedings pending the outcome of the suit for declaratory decree.
The issuance of an injunction lies within the discretion of the chancellor. The exercise of this judicial discretion will not be interfered with by an appellate court unless an abuse of discretion is clearly made to appear.1
Our review of this record in the light of these well settled rules leads us to the conclusion that no error had been clearly made to appear. Accordingly the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silverman v. Wally Blaustein, 369 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ol which belong to the estate of Max Blau-stein, deceased. After a review of the record we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor in the entry of the temporary restraining order. See United States Fire Insurance Company v. Brown, 185 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Nevertheless, we agree with Silverman that the chancellor erred in issuing a temporary restraining order without requiring that Blaustein post a bond or in the alternative determining she is unable to give bond as required by Fla…
-
Cent. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Electro Bazaar Int'l Corp., 427 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…nction bond in the amount of $2,500.00. We affirm the issuance of the temporary injunction, Reaves v. Sadler, 136 Fla. 553, 189 So. 41 (1939); Duvallon v. Duvallon, 409 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); United States Fire Insurance Company v. Brown, 185 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) but, direct the trial court to raise the amount of the bond to $75,000.00. Affirmed with directions.…
-
Aerosonic Corp. & MacLeod Instrument Corp. v. Trodyne Corp., 402 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1968)…er Florida law the issuance of an injunction is within the sound discretion of the court and the exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed unless an abuse is clearly shown, United States Fire Insurance Company v. Brown, 3rd D.C.A.Fla., 1966, 185 So. 2d 11. This Court has stated that the framing of an injunction appropriate to the facts of the ease is a matter peculiarly for the consideration of the trial court, J. M. Fields of Anderson, Inc. v. Kroger, 5 Cir., 1965, 330 F. 2d 686. The Florida courts…
Authorities Cited
- Reaves v. Sadler, 136 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1939)