ANESTHESIA GROUP OF MIAMI, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES HYAMS, M.D., APPELLEE
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 affirmed the temporary injunction, clarifying that it restrains the enforcement of the non-competition clause in the employment agreement.
Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. appealed a temporary injunction that restrained it from enforcing a non-competition clause against Dr. Charles Hyams. …
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 Motion To Dissolve Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We interpret the temporary injunction as restraining appellant Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc., from enforcement of the non-competition clause set forth in paragraph 13 of the employment agreement and with that clarification, affirm the temporary injunction.
Anesthesia Group argues that certain of the findings in the temporary injunction are in error. We need not consider those claims in this proceeding, as the claimed errors would not affect the result. This court’s affirmance is without prejudice to appellant to assert its legal position regarding the applicable contracts, and the correct interpretation thereof, in subsequent proceedings. See Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 563 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927, 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
On the question of injunction bond, we note the concession of appellee Dr. Charles Hyams that Anesthesia Group may reopen that issue upon a change in circumstances.
On the claim that the trial court erroneously denied the motion to dissolve, we note that the motion was part of, and in substance was, a motion to reconsider the temporary injunction. It is our view that the trial court’s ruling does not preclude submission of a proper motion to dissolve.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando v. MMB Props., 171 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ocedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). Planned Parenthood also appeals an order denying its Motion to Reconsider, Dissolve, or Modify Order Granting Motion for Temporary Injunction. This motion was actually two motions. See Anesthesia Grp. of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams, 693 So. 2d 673, 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (noting that motion to dissolve temporary injunction was, in part, a motion to reconsider). To the extent this second order simply denied a motion to reconsider a previous non-final order, it was not appealable. Agere Sys. In…
-
Autoxcellence v. C & A Muffler, Inc., 731 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ing brake and muffler repairs or replacements. However, we are not persuaded that this language mandates that Autoxcellence cease routine body work, which may incidentally require brake and muffler work. See Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams, 693 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the orders without [*722] prejudice to the parties asserting their legal positions regarding the lease clauses and their correct interpretations in subsequent proceedings. See Hyams; Jack…
Authorities Cited
- Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 563 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)