DONALD E. GALLAGHER, APPELLANT,
v.
AUTOMATED BUILDING COMPONENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1966-12-13
No. 66-968
Before PEARSON and SWANN, JJ., and NATHAN, RAYMOND G., Associate Judge.
193 So. 2d 445 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Synopsis

This case involves an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction that restrained the defendant from engaging in a competing business for two years after August 1965. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, finding that the employment contract lacked a definite term, distinguishing it from prior case law.


Holding

The court held that because the employment contract did not contain a definite term of employment, the covenant restricting the defendant's future business activities did not fall within the purview of the cited case law.


Key Quotes

“We conclude that there is no definite term of employment in the contract between plaintiff and defendant and therefore the covenant of such contract relating to employment after termination of defendant's employment with plaintiff does not fall within the purview of Storz Broadcasting Company v. Courtney, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 40.”

This quote explains the primary reason for the court's decision, distinguishing the current case from a relevant precedent.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant, Donald E. Gallagher, appealed a temporary injunction issued against him. The injunction prohibited him from entering the wood joint con…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, appellant, takes this interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction enjoining and restraining him until further order of the court “from directly or indirectly * * * entering into or engaging in the wood joint connector plate manufacturing business, or any branch thereof, as an employee, agent or salesman, for a period of two years after August, 1965.”

The granting of a temporary injunction rests within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor. See Cunningham v. Dozer, Fla.App.1963, 159 So.2d 105.

We conclude that there is no definite term of employment in the contract between plaintiff and defendant and therefore the covenant of such contract relating to employment after termination of defendant’s employment with plaintiff does not fall within the purview of Storz Broadcasting Company v. Courtney, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 40.

No determination is here being made as to the reasonableness of the covenants in the contract between the plaintiff and defendant, including but not limited to time and area, as such points were not raised on appeal.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Cotita v. State, 381 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
    …inst two other little girls who, like the victim, had been guests at defendant’s backyard swimming pool. The court held the evidence admissible because it “established a course of conduct in the commission of the crime charged in the instant case.” (193 So. 2d 445) Florida courts have stated other bases of relevancy in similar cases. In Summit v. State, 285 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973), evidence of prior similar lewd and lascivious acts against the victim of the offense charged and against her sistér was.…
  • Torcise v. Germinal A. Perez, 319 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
    …appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in granting in-junctive relief to appellees, from a review of the record as a whole, we feel that such contention is without merit. See Gallagher v. Automated Building Components, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 445; City of Miami Beach v. Seacoast Towers Miami Beach, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 554; and Albury v. Plumber's Local Union No. 519, A.F. of L.-C.I.O., Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 647. The order appealed from is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.…
  • Collier v. Powers, 229 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of the rule stated in Gallagher v. Automated Building Components, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 445.…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw