Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1962–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Daniel v. Maygreen2 sentences2025A party seeking an injunction to prevent the violation of a restrictive covenant establishes a prima facie case by presenting evidence showing the violation.” Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass’n v. Keever, 595 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); accord Coyne, 645 So. 2d at 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Daniel, 143 So. 2d at 538 (explaining that “an injunction against violation of restrictive covenants may be granted although there is no showing of irreparable injury”). 2006Following Stephl , in Daniel v. May, 143 So.2d 536, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), this court applied the rule "that an injunction against violation of restrictive covenants may be granted although there is no showing of irreparable injury." We explained that there is a right to equitable relief in such cases "because every piece of land in the world has a peculiar value, infringement *674 of which is not readily remediable by assessment of damages of law." Id. | 2 | 2 |
Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Keevergreen1 sentence2025A party seeking an injunction to prevent the violation of a restrictive covenant establishes a prima facie case by presenting evidence showing the violation.” Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass’n v. Keever, 595 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); accord Coyne, 645 So. 2d at 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Daniel, 143 So. 2d at 538 (explaining that “an injunction against violation of restrictive covenants may be granted although there is no showing of irreparable injury”). | 1 | 1 |
Blue Reef Holding Corp. v. Coynegreen1 sentence2025A party seeking an injunction to prevent the violation of a restrictive covenant establishes a prima facie case by presenting evidence showing the violation.” Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass’n v. Keever, 595 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); accord Coyne, 645 So. 2d at 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Daniel, 143 So. 2d at 538 (explaining that “an injunction against violation of restrictive covenants may be granted although there is no showing of irreparable injury”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boucher v. Novotny
green
1 sentence1976The leading case on the question of the standing required to seek an injunction against the violation of a municipal zoning ordinance is Boucher v. Novotny, Fla. 1958, 102 So.2d 132 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc. v. Robilotto
neutral
2 sentences1971The court, following decisions in New York and Cali fornia, Perry & Sons, Inc. v. Robilotto, 39 Misc.2d 147 , 240 N.Y.S.2d 331 (S.Ct. 1963), and Gage Plumbing Supply v. Local 300, International Hod Carriers Union, 202 Cal. App.2d 197 , 20 Cal.Rptr. 860 (1962), held that state courts do have the authority to enjoin violations or breaches of no-strike provisions of collective bargaining agreements. 1971The court, following decisions in New York and Cali fornia, Perry & Sons, Inc. v. Robilotto, 39 Misc.2d 147 , 240 N.Y.S.2d 331 (S.Ct. 1963), and Gage Plumbing Supply v. Local 300, International Hod Carriers Union, 202 Cal. App.2d 197 , 20 Cal.Rptr. 860 (1962), held that state courts do have the authority to enjoin violations or breaches of no-strike provisions of collective bargaining agreements. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
A. I. Gage Plumbing Supply Co. v. Local 300 of International Hod Carriers
green
2 sentences1971The court, following decisions in New York and Cali fornia, Perry & Sons, Inc. v. Robilotto, 39 Misc.2d 147 , 240 N.Y.S.2d 331 (S.Ct. 1963), and Gage Plumbing Supply v. Local 300, International Hod Carriers Union, 202 Cal. App.2d 197 , 20 Cal.Rptr. 860 (1962), held that state courts do have the authority to enjoin violations or breaches of no-strike provisions of collective bargaining agreements. 1971The court, following decisions in New York and Cali fornia, Perry & Sons, Inc. v. Robilotto, 39 Misc.2d 147 , 240 N.Y.S.2d 331 (S.Ct. 1963), and Gage Plumbing Supply v. Local 300, International Hod Carriers Union, 202 Cal. App.2d 197 , 20 Cal.Rptr. 860 (1962), held that state courts do have the authority to enjoin violations or breaches of no-strike provisions of collective bargaining agreements. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Stephl v. Moore
green
2 sentences1962It is also established in Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313 , 114 So. 455 , that an injunction against violation of restrictive covenants may be granted although there is no showing of irreparable injury. 1962It is also established in Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313 , 114 So. 455 , that an injunction against violation of restrictive covenants may be granted although there is no showing of irreparable injury. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.