ARLENE D. JENNINGS AND JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
PERRINE FISH MARKET, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, CLAUDE E. SHULL AND MILDRED S. SHULL, 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.
The court held that the chancellor did not abuse discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
[1] The determination to grant or deny an application for temporary injunction relief rests within the sound discretion of the chancellor, guided by established principles of…
[2] The issuance of a temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should be granted sparingly and with caution only after the moving party has proven suf…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs, property owners, sued adjoining property owners whose customers parked in plaintiffs' lot, causing shortages and business loss. Plaintiffs…
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 Private Nuisance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff property owners in this private nuisance action appeal an order denying their motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the customers of the defendants, adjoining property owners, from parking their cars in plaintiffs’ parking lot.
Defendants, Perrine Fish Market, Inc. and the owner/operators Claude and Mildred Shull own property adjacent to that of the plaintiffs, Arlene Jennings and Jennings Construction Corp., the prime tenant in the Jennings office building. In front of plaintiffs’ building is a parking lot, whereas defendants have no parking facilities on their property but do provide such facilities for their customers across the street. Nevertheless, a large number of defendants’ customers use plaintiffs’ parking lot for convenience, often creating a shortage of parking spaces for plaintiffs’ customers and tenants. Alleging a loss of established tenants and business as a result, the plaintiffs filed the instant complaint for damages and a permanent and temporary injunction seeking to enjoin the above interference of the use of their property. After a hearing, the chancellor denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. We affirm.
In view of the particular facts presented in each case, the determination to grant or deny an application for temporary injunction relief rests within the sound discretion of the chancellor guided by established rules of the principles of equity jurisdiction. Muss v. City of Miami Beach, 312 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Further, the issuance of a temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should be granted sparingly and with caution only after the moving party has proven sufficient facts entitling it to relief. Bemas Corporation v. City of Jacksonville, 298 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Reviewing the facts in light of the above principles of law, we find the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction. This affirmance, however, is in no way to be construed as a decision on the merits of the case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…drastic remedy which should be sparingly granted. Rollins Protective Services Co. v. Lammons, 472 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Florida Land Co. v. Orange County, 418 So. 2d 370, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Jennings v. Perrine Fish Market, Inc., 360 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Generally, a party seeking a temporary injunction must establish: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the…
-
Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Moreover, since a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, it should be granted sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and proven facts entitling it to relief. Jennings v. Perrine Fish Market, Inc., 360 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges it will suffer irreparable harm because of defendant’s interference with its “property rights,” but contains no ultimate facts to this effect. This general allegation of irreparable harm is clearly i…
-
Dania JAI Alai Int'l, Inc. v. Murua, 375 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…(4) consideration of public interest. Generally, a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and will be granted sparingly only after the moving party has alleged and proven facts entitling it to relief. Jennings v. Perrine Fish Market, Inc., 360 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Artis, supra, this court held that mere loss of income does not constitute irreparable injury. In Butler v. Lomelo, 355 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), we held that l…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Muss v. City OF Miami Beach, 312 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Bemas Corp. v. City OF Jacksonville, 298 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)