Pizio v. Babcock
| Decision Date | 21 December 1954 |
| Citation | 76 So.2d 654 |
| Parties | James V. PIZIO and Arthur W. Hammond d/b/a Pizio's Drive-In, Appellants, v. Melvin BABCOCK and Mabel J. Babcock, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
McCune, Hiaasen & Kelley and Albert E. Barrs, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Welcom H. Watson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Appellees own and operate a motel and apartment house on Southeast 15th Street in the City of Fort Lauderdale. Appellants own and operate a drive-in restaurant on Southeast 15th Street in the same city. Both properties are on the same side of the street, are separated by a vacant lot and are near or adjacent to U. S. Highway Number One, sometimes called the Federal Highway.
May 26, 1954, predicated on a complaint filed November 12, 1953, appellees secured a permanent injunction against appellants, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
'It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said defendants James V Pizio and Arthur W. Hammond, doing business as Pizio's Drive In, are hereby enjoined and restrained from the hour of 10:00 p. m. until the hour of 7:00 a. m.,
We are confronted with an appeal from said final decree. It is contended (1) that appellees did not allege and prove that appellants operated their business in such a manner as to be a nuisance, (2) the permanent injunction appealed from is not so definite as to apprise appellants of what they are required to do. It is in fact so indefinite, say appellants, that they are in doubt as to what steps they should take to comply with it.
In response to the first question, it is sufficient to say that the complaint alleges a cause of action. As to the proof, it is evident that all the allegations of the complaint were not proven but the chancellor found that while there were conflicts in the proof there was 'ample evidence to sustain the allegations that the operation and maintenance of the said drive-in restaurant constituted a nuisance.' In reaching this conclusion the chancellor had the parties before him, he lived in the same community and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Milling v. Berg
...cites, in support of his position, Thebaut v. Canova, 1866, 11 Fla. 143. However, the plaintiff cites the case of Pizio v. Babcock, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 654, 655, where the court 'As to the proof, it is evident that all the allegations of the complaint were not proven that the chancellor foun......
-
Florio v. State ex rel. Epperson, 1215
...be complied with, and one against whom the order is directed should not be left in doubt as to what he is required to do. Pizio v. Babcock, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 654. Since the injunctive decree rendered by the chancellor was wrongfully discriminatory and too broad in scope, it is subject to b......
-
Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando v. MMB Props.
...shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document....”); Pizio v. Babcock, 76 So.2d 654, 655 (Fla.1954) (“Injunctive orders like this should be confined within reasonable limitations and cast in such terms as they can, with ce......
-
DeRitis v. AHZ Corp.
...be complied with, and one against whom the order is directed should not be left in doubt as to what he is required to do. Pizio v. Babcock, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 654. An example of approved specificity is found in Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The trial judge rather t......