JOHN D. ROWE, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Minimatic Components, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 494 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
  …Civil Procedure. Finally, we note that at least one court has described the posting of a $1.00 bond as making a “farce” and “mockery” of the requirements of rule 1.610(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Marston v. Gainesville Sun Publishing Co., 314 So. 2d 257, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We agree that any requirement of nominal bond in the absence of extenuating circumstances emasculates the salutary purpose of the rule; therefore, the posting of a bond is mandatory in most instances. See Int’l Brotherhood…
• Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cletus Cozart and Patricia Cozart, 561 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
  …al cases hold that a trial court abuses its discretion by initially setting a $1 bond on an injunction. Wasserman; Minimatic Components, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 494 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Marston v. Gainesville Sun Publishing Co., 314 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). These cases suggest that [*371] such a small bond is effectively no bond. In light of the attorneys' fees which will be recoverable against a bond in virtually any case in which a temporary injunction is wrongful, it can be forc…
• Wasserman v. Gulf Health, Inc., 512 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
  …94 So. 2d 303, 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The first district has stated “[t]he fixing of a bond of $1.00 was making a farce of the Rule [1.610] and the law should not be made a mockery of in its application.” Marston v. Gainesville Sun Publishing Co., 314 So. 2d 257, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We follow our sister courts in holding that the purpose of the bond requirement in rule 1.610(b) is not met by the posting of a nominal bond. We reverse and set aside the trial court’s denial of appellee/cross-appellant’s…

Authorities Cited

• United States v. Doyle Ray Skinner, 412 F.2d 98 (8th Cir. 1969)
• Giblin v. The City OF Coral Gables, 149 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1963)