City of Miami Springs v. Steffen
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- South Fla. Limo., Inc. v. Broward Cty. Av., Dept. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
- Maria Teresa Costantini Gomes v. Victor Maniglia (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2026)
- XIP TECHNOLOGIES, L L C v. ASCEND GLOBAL SERVICES, L L C (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
- Landmark At Crescent Ridge LP v. Everest Financial, Inc., a California Corporation (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
- BAUTISTA REO U.S., LLC v. ARR INVESTMENTS, INC. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
- Riverland and Indian Sun v. Lj Melody (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
- Charlotte County v. Vetter (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
- GSSP Enterprise, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
- Yachting Promotions, Inc. v. Broward (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Hialeah, Inc. v. Calder Race Course, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
- Camji v. Helmsley (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
- BGH Ins. Syndicate, Inc. v. PRESIDENTIAL FIRE & CAS. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
- Jacksonville Elec. v. Beemik Builders (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
- Homeopathic Physicians v. DEPT. OF PROF. REG. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
- Florida State Society of Homeopathic Physicians v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
- Bailey v. Christo (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
- Hotelerama Associates, Ltd. v. Bystrom (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
CITY OF MIAMI SPRINGS, Joined by E. Michael Myers, Appellants,
v.
Earl C. STEFFEN and Mardell Steffen, His Wife, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
*931 Albert L. Weintraub, Joseph H. Weil, Miami, for appellants.
J. Arthur Hawkesworth, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
FERGUSON, Judge.
We reverse the temporary mandatory injunction which directs defendants to pay plaintiffs $53,491.21 in back wages. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until full relief may be granted. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 212 So.2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). There is no irreparable harm for the purpose of a temporary injunction where the harm can be adequately compensated for by a monetary award. Goldberger v. Regency Highland Condominium Association, Inc., 383 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Oxford International Bank and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). A temporary injunction does not decide the merits of a case unless (1) the hearing is specially set for that purpose, and (2) the parties have had a full opportunity to present their cases. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981); Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 423 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.