LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 


CONTACT
    Toll-free: 800-351-0917
    E-mail us
    Submit Opinions

PLACE AN ORDER
    Print Editions
    Online Editions
    Bound Volumes
    2/24-Hour Online Access


OUR PUBLICATIONS
    Florida Law Weekly
    FLW Supplement
    FLW Federal
    Collected Cases
    Sample FLW Online


RESEARCH
    Cross Citations
    Week In Review
    Rule Revisions
    Review Granted
    Current Issue Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2023 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Public Reprimands
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links



  
22 Fla. L. Weekly D2199e

MATTHIAS RATH, M.D. and HEALTH NOW, INC., Appellants, v. NETWORK MARKETING, L.C., n/k/a REXALL SHOWCASE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee. 4th District. Contempt -- Order -- Specification of conduct constituting contempt -- Temporary injunction fails to identify the clinical study and its supporting documentation with adequate specificity to support contempt order

MATTHIAS RATH, M.D. and HEALTH NOW, INC., Appellants, v. NETWORK MARKETING, L.C., n/k/a REXALL SHOWCASE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 96-3739. Opinion filed September 17, 1997. Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James T. Carlisle, Judge; L.T. Case No. CL 96-7754 AE. Counsel: Michael B. Small and Lisa S. Small of Small & Small, P.A., Palm Beach, for appellants. Lorie M. Gleim and Mark F. Bideau of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) Of appellant's arguments, the only one with merit is that the contempt order may not stand since the September 17, 1996 temporary injunction fails to identify the clinical study and its supporting documentation with adequate specificity to support a contempt order. See Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hettinger v. McMahon, 164 So. 2d 553, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). The trial court was authorized to require production of the documents by November 5, 1996. We strike only that portion of the October 23, 1996 order finding appellants in contempt.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. (POLEN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.)

* * *