SIGNAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING , L L C
v.
METROPOLITAN SYTSTEMS, INC., ET AL
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.
This case involves an appeal of a trial court's injunction. The appellate court reversed one part of the injunction for being overbroad but affirmed the rest.
The court held that paragraph 2.a. of the injunction was overbroad because it did not describe the restrained acts in reasonable detail, failing to comply with the procedural rule. However, the court found the rest of the injunction to be proper.
[1] An injunction provision that prohibits a party from interfering with another party's priority right without specifying the particular acts restrained is overbroad and fai…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The parties concede, and we agree, that paragraph "2.a." of the injunction, which prohibits Signal and HART from "interfering with Metro's priority right to install advertising benches in the unincorporated area of Hillsborough County," is overbroad; it fails to furnish "in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained."”
This quote establishes the specific part of the injunction being challenged and the reason for the challenge (overbreadth and failure to detail restrained acts).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSignal Outdoor Advertising and HART appealed a trial court's injunction granted to Metropolitan Systems, Inc. The injunction prohibited Signal and HAR…
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 Injunction Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Metropolitan Systems, Inc. LaROSE, Judge. Signal Outdoor Advertising, LLC, and the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) appeal the trial court's injunction entered in favor of Metropolitan Systems, Inc. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(B) ("District courts of appeal shall review, by appeal . . . nonfinal orders as prescribed by rule 9.130 . . . ."); 9.130(a)(3)(B) (authorizing appeals of nonfinal orders granting injunctions). The parties concede, and we agree, that paragraph "2.a." of the injunction, which prohibits Signal and HART from "interfering with Metro's priority right to install advertising benches in the unincorporated area of Hillsborough County," is overbroad; it fails to furnish "in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c) ("Every injunction . . . shall describe in reasonable
detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document . . . ."); see also, e.g., Hasley v. Harrell, 971 So. 2d 149, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[T]he injunction did not comport with the procedural rule because it referred to another document to describe the acts restrained.
Moreover, neither the judgment nor the referenced document specifically set forth the restraints imposed on Hasley, as required by the rule and the statute."). Paragraph 2.a. fails to "strictly comply" with the procedural rule and, in so doing, ensnares otherwise legal activity. Polk County v. Mitchell, 931 So. 2d 922, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("[A]n order granting a temporary injunction must strictly comply with [rule] 1.610(c) . . . ."); see also, e.g., Smith v. Wiker, 192 So. 3d 603, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("[T]he prohibition that Smith not linger on his driveway is overbroad because it encompasses conduct that could constitute stalking by harassing the neighbor but could also encompass activity that is perfectly legal.").
Therefore, we reverse as to paragraph 2.a.; however, we affirm the injunction in all other respects.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part; and remanded. MORRIS and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lang v. State, 931 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Smith v. Wiker, 192 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)