Uro-Care, P.A. v. Montford
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
After the reconsideration required by our opinion in Uro-Care v. Montford, 767 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), the trial judge again denied Uro-Care’s application for a temporary injunction enforcing the terms of a non-competitive agreement with Dr. Montford. On this second appeal, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying temporary injunctive relief under the pertinent standards. Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney, 751 So.2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See Bradley v. Health Coalition, Inc., 687 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Cordis Corp. v. ProoslinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
- Bradley v. Health Coalition, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
- 3299 N. Federal Hwy. v. BROWARD CTY. COM'RSDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- Anich Industries, Inc. v. RaneyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
- Harrison v. Palm Harbor MRI, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Travel Guard Group, Inc. v. GrubbDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001