CITY OF GAINESVILLE, APPELLANT,
v.
WATSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 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 City of Gainesville appealed a trial court's grant of temporary injunctive relief against enforcement of a development permit moratorium. The appellate court affirmed the injunction on the merits but remanded for the trial court to address the bond requirement mandated by rule.
Watson satisfied the prerequisites for temporary injunctive relief—likelihood of irreparable harm, unavailability of adequate remedy at law, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and favorable consideration of the public interest. However, the temporary injunction was deficient for failing to include a bond requirement as mandated by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b).
[1] A temporary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of irreparable harm, the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, a substantial likel…
[2] An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's discretion to grant or dissolve a temporary injunction absent an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunction is appropriate remedy where plaintiff can demonstrate likelihood of irreparable harm, unavailability of adequate remedy at law, substantial likelihood of success on merits, and consideration of public interest”
Establishes the four-factor test for obtaining temporary injunctive relief that the trial court must apply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City enacted a six-month moratorium in May 2001 on development permits for certain industrial uses in its 1-2 (Industrial) zoned areas. Watson Con…
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 Bond Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
The City of Gainesville (City) enacted an ordinance in May 2001 imposing a six-month moratorium on the issuance of development permits for certain then-permissible uses in its 1-2 (Industrial) land-use areas. The City appeals the trial court’s entry of a temporary injunction preventing the City from enforcing its moratorium ordinance against the efforts of Appellee, Watson Construction Company, Inc., to secure approval for a hot mix asphalt plant on a parcel of land zoned for such industrial use. We have jurisdiction of this non-final order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).
Having reviewed the conflicting evidence in the record before the trial court, we agree with Appellee that the trial court applied the law correctly in finding Appel-lee entitled to temporary injunctive relief. See City of Oviedo v. Alafaya Util., Inc., 704 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (stating that extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunction is appropriate remedy where plaintiff can demonstrate likelihood of irreparable harm, unavailability of adequate remedy at law, substantial likelihood of success on merits, and consideration of public interest); Alachua County v. Lewis Oil Co., Inc., 516 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (finding trial court had wide discretion to grant or dissolve temporary injunction, with which appellate court would not interfere absence an abuse of discretion); Old Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Levenson, 177 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (indicating that where trial court’s findings of fact are reasonably supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, as they are here, appellate court cannot re-weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment).
However, the City correctly contends that the temporary injunction does not address the issue of posting bond.
We agree that the temporary injunction is deficient for failing to include a bond requirement. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b). Appellee does not dispute that it should post bond for the temporary injunction.
Therefore, we AFFIRM the temporary injunction on the issue of Appellee’s entitlement to injunctive relief and REMAND for the trial court to address the bond requirement. Cutler Creek Village Townhouse Ass’n, Inc. v. Cutler Creek Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 584 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding temporary injunction was defective for failure to comply with rule requiring posting of bond to pay costs and damages that could result from issuance of injunctive relief, requiring remand for entry of appropriate bond).
•ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charlotte Cnty. v. Richard Vetter for the Charlotte Cnty. Park of Commerce, LLC, 863 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…omplete the appellees’ permit application process pending the final hearing. We also affirm the preliminary injunction to the extent that it effectively lifts the moratorium imposed under the ordinance. See City of Gainesville v. Watson Constr. Co., 815 So. 2d 785, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). We otherwise reverse. [*470] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. NORTHCUTT and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- OLD Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Levenson, 177 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- City OF Oviedo v. Alafaya Utils., Inc., 704 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Alachua Cnty. v. Lewis OIL Co., Inc., 516 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Cutler Creek Vill. Townhouse Ass'n, Inc. v. Cutler Creek Vill. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 584 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)