TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Muss v. City of Miami Beach

Muss v. City of Miami Beach, 312 So. 2d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 13, 1975
Docket
No. 75-46
Judges
Pearson, Haverfield and Nathan
Citations
312 So. 2d 553

Opinion

312 So.2d 553 (1975)

Stephen MUSS and Charles H. Rosenberg, Etc., et al., Appellants,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Appellee.

No. 75-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 13, 1975. Rehearing Denied June 4, 1975.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Joseph Wanick, City Atty., and Lee H. Schillinger, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court denying an application for temporary injunction sought by the plaintiffs to enjoin the City of Miami Beach from enforcing its rent control ordinance.

Appellants seek to temporarily enjoin enforcement of the City's rent control ordinance on the grounds that such ordinance is invalid as the City did not comply with *554 the proper procedures in the passage thereof as set forth and prescribed by the charter of the City of Miami Beach.

Granting or refusing an application for temporary injunction rests within the court's sound judicial discretion, guided by established rules of the principles of equity jurisprudence, in view of the particular facts presented in each case. Sackett v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.App. 1971, 246 So.2d 162 . From the facts in this case we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the application for a temporary injunction.

This decision is not to be construed as passing on the procedural validity or the constitutionality vel non of the rent control ordinance or as expressing an opinion thereon.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1975: 11976: 11978: 11986: 11989: 11991: 21992: 11996: 119752026peak 1991 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
  2. Future Tech International, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd.944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)
  3. UNI-CHEM CORP. OF FLA., INC. v. Maret338 So. 2d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)
  4. Jennings v. Perrine Fish Market, Inc.360 So. 2d 434 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
  5. Burger King Corp. v. Lee766 F. Supp. 1149 (S.D. Fla. 1991)
  6. Rey v. Guy Gannett Publishing Co.766 F. Supp. 1142 (S.D. Fla. 1991)

Most recent

  1. Future Tech International, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd.944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)
  2. Palm Beach Commerce Center Associated, Ltd. v. Walker598 So. 2d 165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
  3. Burger King Corp. v. Lee766 F. Supp. 1149 (S.D. Fla. 1991)
  4. Rey v. Guy Gannett Publishing Co.766 F. Supp. 1142 (S.D. Fla. 1991)
  5. A-one Coin Laundry Equipment Co. v. Waterside Towers Condominium Ass'n541 So. 2d 795 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
  6. Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Sackett v. City of Coral Gables, 246 So. 2d 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list