Opinion

Matrix Systems, Inc. v. Odebrecht Contractors of Florida, Inc.

2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2234 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Mar 8, 2000

Full text

MATRIX SYSTEMS, INC. v. ODEBRECHT CONTRACTORS OF FLORIDA, INC.

PER CURIAM. Matrix Systems, Inc. appeals from an order entering a permanent injunction compelling performance of a purchase order. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and hold that the injunction was wrongfully entered. At the hearing on the contractor’s complaint for entry of a mandatory permanent injunction, over Matrix counsel’s repeated objections, the trial court refused to allow the taking of sworn testimony and permitted only proffers from counsel. “In the absence of a clear stipulation of counsel, argument of counsel alone does not constitute evidence from which the trial court can determine the propriety, vel non, of granting injunctive relief.” Brand v. Elliott, 610 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). This maxim holds particularly true in this case, where the allegations were intensely fact-specific and related to complex engineering, construction, and computer software issues. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Cope, Jorgenson, Levy
Cluster ID: 7790644

Citations

2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2234
753 So. 2d 652

Cited by

LYNETTE LOGREIRA v. EFRAIN LOGREIRA
District Court of Appeal of Florida · Jun 2, 2021
Pena v. Rodriguez
District Court of Appeal of Florida · May 22, 2019

Parentheticals

“In the absence of a clear stipulation of counsel, argument of counsel alone does not constitute evidence from which the trial court can determine the propriety, vel non, of granting injunctive relief.”
LYNETTE LOGREIRA v. EFRAIN LOGREIRA
“In the absence of a clear stipulation of counsel, argument of counsel alone does not constitute evidence from which the trial court can determine the propriety, vel non, of granting injunctive relief.” (quoting Brand v. Elliott, 610 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992))
Pena v. Rodriguez