From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

F.V. Investments, N.V. v. Sicma Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 15, 1982
415 So. 2d 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

No. 81-2421.

May 18, 1982. Rehearing Denied July 15, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Frederick N. Barad, J.

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick Hoehl and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellants.

Helliwell, Melrose DeWolf and Robert J. Schaffer, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN, (Ret.), Associate Judge.


The preliminary injunction issued pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a) is reversed on two grounds. First, the acts enjoined by the injunction are not specified with such reasonable definiteness and certainty that the defendants bound by the decree would know what they must refrain from doing without the matter being left to speculation and conjecture. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners Laundry, Inc., 41 So.2d 865, 871 (Fla. 1949). Secondly, the complaint for injunctive relief fails to set forth clearly, definitely, and unequivocally sufficient allegations to warrant the intervention of a court of equity. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, 118 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1960); Stanton v. Harris, 152 Fla. 736, 13 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1943).

Reversed.


Summaries of

F.V. Investments, N.V. v. Sicma Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 15, 1982
415 So. 2d 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

F.V. Investments, N.V. v. Sicma Corp.

Case Details

Full title:F.V. INVESTMENTS, N.V., A NETHERLANDS ANTILLES CORP., AND RIVERPOINT…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jul 15, 1982

Citations

415 So. 2d 755 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

Swensen v. Lofton

We agree with appellants' contention that appellees' application for temporary injunction is insufficient…

E-Racer Tech, LLC v. Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs

An injunction is invalid if it does not specify the acts enjoined with reasonable definition and clarity.…