VIOLET FISHER, A SINGLE WOMAN AND COLLEEN PHILLIPS, A SINGLE WOMAN,
v.
LULA RANDO, A MARRIED WOMAN
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 reversed a circuit court's dismissal of an amended bill seeking an injunction. The court found that the appellants were entitled to injunctive relief to protect their possession of the property until their right to possession could be determined by the county judge's court.
Yes, the appellants were entitled to injunctive relief to protect their possession of the property until their right to possession could be determined by the county judge's court.
“While the allegations of fact are not as clear and exact as they might be, it appears that the appellants were entitled to injunctive relief to protect their possession of the property involved until such time as their right to possession, vel non, might be determined by the judgment of the county judge's court.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the dismissal, finding that the appellants' allegations, despite some lack of clarity, supported their claim for injunctive relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed an amended bill seeking an injunction to protect their possession of certain property and their business conducted therein. The circu…
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 Right Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court granting a motion to dismiss an amended bill. The bill, among other things, sought an injunction. While the allegations of fact are not as clear and exact as they might be, it appears that the appellants were entitled to injunctive relief to protect their possession of the property involved until such time as their right to possession, vel non, might be determined by *409the judgment of the county judge’s court. It is not necessary for us to determine here whether or not appellants are entitled to maintain an action for damages in a proper court against appellee for interference with appellants’ possession of, and the conduct of their business in, the premises involved.
The decree is therefore reversed with directions for further proceedings consistent with the above ruling.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.