CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
v.
MORGAN
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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court erred in dismissing a complaint challenging a city ordinance while simultaneously keeping a temporary injunction in full force and effect. The court found that once a complaint is dismissed, any temporary injunction based on that complaint must fall with it.
No. Once a complaint is dismissed, any temporary injunction issued based on that complaint must fall. It is error to continue a temporary injunction in full force and effect when the bill of complaint upon which it was based no longer exists.
“it is error to continue in full force and effect a temporary injunction that had been issued based solely upon the allegations of á bill of complaint which was no longer in existence by reason of the fact that a motion to dismiss the bill had been granted”
Establishes the core legal principle that a temporary injunction cannot survive dismissal of the underlying complaint
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn P. Morgan filed suit in Circuit Court seeking to enjoin the City of Miami Beach from collecting license taxes under a city ordinance. The trial c…
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 Interlocutory Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
John P. Morgan instituted a suit in the Circuit Court of Dade County to enjoin the City of Miami Beach from collecting license taxes under an ordinance enacted by the City. Based on the allegations of the bill the. court issued a restraining order temporarily enjoining the City as prayed. Subsequently the court granted a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint failed to state, a claim upon which relief could be granted. This, order, which was entered on February 11, 1953, contained the following adjudications:
“(1) That the plaintiff’s 'Complaint for Declaratory Decree be, and the same is hereby, dismissed;
“(2) That Ordinance 17.16(117) of ‘The Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, 1950’ is not unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory ;
“(3) That the bond which was heretofore posted by the plaintiff, for the use and benefit of the defendant, The City of Miami Beach,' shall remain in full force and effect and stay all proceedings until a final determination of the above styled cause.”
On March ,19, 1953, the defendant in the court below filed a petition for interlocutory certiorari in this Court to review the order that was entered. The matter is now before us for adjudication.
After the entry of this order’ the City of Miami Beach instituted this certiorari proceeding to review the order'which, in legal effect, adjudicated finally the subject matter of the bill of complaint against the contentions of the plaintiff and , dismissed the bill without express leave to file an amended pleading; and yet retained the temporary injunction in full force and effect by reason of the adjudication “That the bond which was heretofore posted by the plaintiff for the rise and benefit of the defendant, The City of Miami Beach, shall remain in full force and effect and stay alt proceedings until a final determination of the above styled cause.” (Emphasis supplied.) In Hall v. Hanford, Fla., 64 So. 2d 303, it was held that it is error to continue in full force and effect a temporary injunction that had-been issued based solely upon the allegations of á bill of complaint which was no longer in existence by reason of the fact that a motion' to dismiss the bill had been granted. • ’ •
The order under attack falls squarely under the principle stated in the cited-case, and hence t(ie petition for certiorari must be granted.,
Accordingly, it is ordered that the challenged decree be quashed with directions that a decree be entered in conformance with this opinion arid judgment.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS* JJ.; concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The World Sec. Fund v. Schmidt, 406 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…am v. Dozer, 159 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); (2) while the trial court could not have legally kept the temporary injunction in effect after it dismissed the appellees’ complaint with leave to amend in December 1980, City of Miami Beach v. Morgan, 64 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1953); Hall v. Hanford, 64 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1953), the appellants sought no review of that action, instead lodging their appeal from the trial court’s refusal in March 1981 to dissolve the injunction after the appellees’ amended complaint was…
-
Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Union v. Boca Raton Club, Inc., 73 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1954)…oyees. To entitle the plaintiff employees to temporary relief, it was necessary that a case for such relief be not only sufficiently proved, but sufficiently pleaded as well, Hall v. Hanford, Fla., 64 So. 2d 303; City of Miami Beach v. Morgan, Fla., 64 So. 2d 560, and both requirements were met in this case. The allegations of the original bill were indeed “vague and indefinite”, as the chancellor observed. The prayer for relief asked for a sort of blanket declaratory decree as well as injunctive relief, an…
Authorities Cited
- Hall v. Hanford, 64 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1953)