Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

649 So. 2d 336

Docket Nos. 94-2024, 94-2025.

Wise v. Schmidek

Stella WISE and Martin Goldman, Appellants, v. Ian SCHMIDEK, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 1, 1995.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-02-01

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not disturb the trial court's decision.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including NRD Investments, Inc. v. Velazquez, Berger v. Cohen

“A circuit court, sitting in its probate capacity, has inherent jurisdiction to monitor the administration of an estate and to take such appropriate action as it may deem necessary to preserve the assets of the estate for the benefit of the ultimate beneficiaries.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including In Re Estate of Barsanti

Relies on 414 So. 2d 230 - Estate of Conger v. Conger · 508 So. 2d 1264 - Sanchez v. Solomon

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-02-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Office of Atty. Gen. (2000), 937 So. 2d 1247 - Jackson v. Echols (2006)

25 state decisions

160199520002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Ruden Barnett McCloskey Smith Schuster & Russell and Norman A. Fleisher and James George, Miami, for appellants.

¶2*337 Steel Hector & Davis and Clay Craig and Brian J. Felcoski, Miami, for appellee.

¶3Before BASKIN, COPE and GREEN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellants appeal the entry of an ex parte, temporary injunction freezing certain trust assets pending the outcome of this probate proceeding. We affirm.

¶6Generally speaking, the trial court may exercise broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, this court will not disturb the trial court's decision. Sanchez v. Solomon,508 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Moreover, we have said that a circuit court, sitting in its probate capacity, has inherent jurisdiction to monitor the administration of an estate and to take such appropriate action as it may deem necessary to preserve the assets of the estate for the benefit of the ultimate beneficiaries. Estate of Conger,414 So.2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Based upon our review of the record before us, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction on an ex parte basis.

¶7Accordingly, we affirm.

/649/so2d/336 · .json · Public domain