Narrative Opinion Summary
The dissenting opinion by Judge Warner argues for the reversal of the temporary injunction due to the appellee's failure to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief. A significant question arises regarding whether the contractual right asserted is prohibited by the statute of frauds, a defense that is evident in the appellee’s verified complaint. Additionally, during the appellant's motion to dissolve the injunction, the court modified the injunction at the appellee's request, which occurred without a proper motion or admissible evidence, violating Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(d).
Legal Issues Addressed
Modification of Injunction without Proper Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court modified the injunction at the appellee's request without a proper motion or admissible evidence, violating procedural rules.
Reasoning: Additionally, during the appellant's motion to dissolve the injunction, the court modified the injunction at the appellee's request, which occurred without a proper motion or admissible evidence, violating Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(d).
Reversal of Temporary Injunctionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dissenting opinion argues for reversal due to the appellee's failure to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.
Reasoning: The dissenting opinion by Judge Warner argues for the reversal of the temporary injunction due to the appellee's failure to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief.
Statute of Frauds Defensesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion questions whether the asserted contractual right is prohibited by the statute of frauds, which is evident in the appellee’s verified complaint.
Reasoning: A significant question arises regarding whether the contractual right asserted is prohibited by the statute of frauds, a defense that is evident in the appellee’s verified complaint.