EXECUTIVE UNIFORM RENTAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LAUNDROMATION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
SANITARY LINEN SERVICE CO. OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A SANITARY UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE, SANITARY LINEN SERVICE, DUST-TEX SERVICES, AND JOSEPH TURETSKY, 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.
Executive Uniform Rental and Laundromation Corp. appealed a temporary injunction issued without notice by a trial court. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the injunction, holding that while prior notice would have been better practice, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in issuing the injunction or denying the motion to dissolve it.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Although prior notice would have been better practice, the appellants failed to demonstrate prejudicial error in either the issuance of the injunction or the denial of the motion to dissolve.
[1] A reviewing court will affirm a trial court's discretionary rulings on temporary injunctions and motions to dissolve them unless an abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
[2] Appellants bear the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error on the record to justify appellate interference with a trial court's discretionary orders.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although it may have been a better practice to give a notice prior to the issuance of the temporary injunction, it does appear that a hearing was held upon the motion to dissolve.”
Establishes that while notice before issuing an injunction is preferred, the subsequent hearing on dissolution cured any procedural defect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA temporary injunction was issued without prior notice to the appellants, though a hearing was subsequently held on a motion to dissolve the injunctio…
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 Motion To Dissolve Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal we are called upon to determine whether a chancellor abused his discretion in issuing a temporary injunction without notice and thereafter refusing to dissolve same. We also have pending before us a motion by the appellants to require the original plaintiff to increase the bond issued in connection with the temporary injunction, a motion by the ap-pellee, Sanitary Linen Service Co. of Florida, to strike the brief and appendix of the appellee, Joseph Turetsky, and, lastly, a motion by the appellee, Sanitary Linen Service Co. of Florida, to dismiss this appeal. We have determined to deny all these motions. The ground of the latter motion is that review of the temporary injunction and order denying the motion to dissolve is now moot because the trial court, subsequent to this appeal being taken, entered an order modifying said injunction wherein the following is found:
i}< >(< % s{< >{t
“ * * * all parties to this cause have indicated that the Temporary Injunction * * * should be modified * * * ”
It does appear that the appellants may have acquiesced in this modification, in which event the appeal may be moot but, following examination of the record and briefs and hearing oral argument on the matter, we have decided to determine the matter on its merits.
Although it may have been a better practice to give a notice prior to the issuance of the temporary injunction,1 it does appear that a hearing was held upon the motion to dissolve. Both of these rulings are discretionary ones and before this court would be authorized to interfere with same we must find that the chancellor abused his discretion in the entry of said orders.
It is incumbent upon the appellants to demonstrate such an abuse. Durable Uniform and Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 226; AAA Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Morse Taxi and Baggage Transfer, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 902; City of Fort Lauderdale v. Taxi, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 467. We fail to find that they have made prejudicial error appear on this record and, therefore, we affirm the actions of the chancellor here under review. Miami Laundry v. Sanitary Linen Service Co., Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 519; Paul’s Drugs, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 203; Lieberman v. Marshall, Fla.1970, 236 So.2d 120; 17 Fla.Jur., Injunctions, 1972 Supp. § 16.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1970)
- Paul's Drugs, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 175 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Arison Shipping Co. v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 259 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Durable Unif. & Linen Supply Co. v. Sanitary Linen Serv. 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)
- Miami Laundry Co. v. Sanitary Linen Serv. Co., 131 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Taxi, Inc., 247 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)