Gillespie v. Chapline
Citations
- 59 Fla. 500
Syllabus
<p>1. It is the duty of counsel for defendant in error or appellee to file in this court a brief, in support of the correctness of the judgment or decree rendered by the trial court which has been brought here for review.</p> <p>2. It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill every fact, clearly and definitely, that is necessary to entitle him to relief; and if he omits essential facts therefrom, or states such facts therein as show that he is not entitled to relief in a court of equity, he must suffer the consequences of his so doing. This principle applies to all bills in equity, but is especially applicable to bills seeking an injunction, the rule being that the title or interest of the complainant and the facts upon which he predicates his prayer for such relief must be stated positively, with clearness and certainty. The bill must state facts and not opinions or legal conclusions.</p> <p>3. When an application is made to the court for a temporary injunction or restraining order, without notice to the defendant, the allegations in the bill should be even more closely scanned and considered than when the defendant has been served with notice and has the opportunity of resisting the application. Before granting a temporary injunction or restraining order, without notice, the court should be satisfied that a clear case is made by the bill therefor, and also that it has been clearly made to appear that it is a case of urgent necessity and one in which irreparable mischief will be produced if the aid of the court is denied.</p> <p>4. An affidavit to or an allegation in a bill for an injunction asserting simply the legal conclusion that notice to the defendant of the application for injunction will accelerate the injury apprehended is not a sufficient excuse and furnishes no reason for dispensing with notice. To justify the granting of an injunction ex parte and without notice the allegations of the sworn bill or accompanying affidavits must state facts sh
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that the petitioner’s unsupported assertions were not enough to waive the timeliness requirement when there was no other evidence that the petition was timely filed
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Iill, Parki, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.