CITY OF HOMESTEAD, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS A. RAMIREZ, ONEIDA GARAY, BRAULIO HERRERA, TOMAS HERNANDEZ, JR., HERNANDO DONOSSO, JACINTO BAO, JOSE CRUZ, AND SILVIO DE PAZ HERNANDEZ, 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 a temporary injunction was defective because the order failed to specify the reasons for its entry as required by rule.
Mobile ice cream vendors sought to enjoin enforcement of a city ordinance prohibiting their operation. The trial court granted a temporary injunction …
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.610(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
City of Homestead [“City”] appeals an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction. We reverse.
Luis Ramirez, along with several other mobile ice cream vendors, filed a petition for writ of prohibition and a complaint for injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of a City ordinance prohibiting mobile vendors from operating within City limits. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for, a temporary injunction and entered an order that states: “Ordered and adjudged that Plaintiffs’ Motion is hereby Granted. This Court enjoins the Defendant, City of Homestead, from implementing Ordinance 92-05-23 for a period of forty-five (45) days from the day of this order.”
We hold that the injunction is defective because the order fails to specify the reasons for its entry as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c). Russo v. Romano, 591 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); City of Miami v. Coll, 546 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The order granting the injunction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Indus. Waste Servs., Inc. v. Faircloth Sanitation, Inc., 643 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…injunction is conditioned upon Plaintiff posting a $2,500.00 bond. The injunction is defective because the order fails to specify the reasons for its entry, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c). See City of Homestead v. Ramirez, 621 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Pearson & Maluso, M.D., P.A v. Bott, 584 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); City of Miami v. Coll, 546 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, the order below must be reversed and the cause remanded for dissolution of the tempo…
-
Kirkland v. Peoplessouth Bank, 70 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…tial elements of test for injunc-tive relief and remanding for findings in compliance with the rule); Premier Lab Supply, Inc., 10 So. 3d at 206-07 (same); Cadicamo v. Alite, 4 So. 3d 699, 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (same); City of Homestead v. Ramirez, 621 So. 2d 548, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same). For this reason, we must reverse and remand the cause for the trial court to enter an appropriate order based on the evidence received at trial. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. WOLF, PADOVANO, and…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Coll, 546 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Concetta Russo v. Romano, 591 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)