Case Name: John ADAMS, Zoltan Haydu and John Eubanks, Appellants, v. C. B. R. CORPORATION, f/k/a Lemostron, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Black Dentaprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, formerly a partnership d/b/a Black Holding Co., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1967-05-02
Citations: 198 So. 2d 638
Docket Number: No. 67-13
Parties: John ADAMS, Zoltan Haydu and John Eubanks, Appellants, v. C. B. R. CORPORATION, f/k/a Lemostron, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Black Dentaprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, formerly a partnership d/b/a Black Holding Co., Appellees.
Judges: Before HENDRY, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 198
Pages: 638–638

Head Matter:
John ADAMS, Zoltan Haydu and John Eubanks, Appellants, v. C. B. R. CORPORATION, f/k/a Lemostron, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Black Dentaprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, formerly a partnership d/b/a Black Holding Co., Appellees.
No. 67-13.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
May 2, 1967.
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1967.
Klein, Tannenbaum & McGovern, Miami, for appellants.
Frates, Fay, Floyd & Pearson, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By suit in the circuit court in Dade County the plaintiffs sought relief in equity against the appellants and other named defendants, for alleged unfair competition through breach of confidential relationship. After hearing on notice, the trial court granted temporary injunction against the defendants John C. Adams, Zoltán Haydu and John Eubanks, and said defendants filed this interlocutory appeal therefrom. On consideration of the record and the briefs and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the entry of a temporary injunction did not constitute reversible error. Our holding that the showing made by plaintiffs on their application for temporary injunction was sufficient to support such action by the trial court pendente lite, is not to be construed as a decision or ruling by this court on the issues of fact or the applicable questions of law, which are to be tried and determined on final hearing by the circuit court.
Affirmed.