explaining that the order fails because neither it nor “the transcript of the hearing on the motion provide any such specific findings”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the order fails because neither it nor “the transcript of the hearing on the motion provide any such specific findings”
- recognizing availability of injunctive relief where plaintiffs alleged intentional interference with advantageous business relationships
- vacating injunction and observing that injunction issued “improperly burdens [defendant’s] speech more than necessary”
- allowing injunctions for defamatory statements where the “defamatory words are made in the furtherance of the commission of another intentional tort”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHEPHERD, C.J.,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion. I write only to emphasize that the alleged claims for damages in this case for defamation, tortious interference, and invasion of privacy arise solely out of alleged nefarious blog postings by the appellant. Proof of harm in a case where, as here, the claimant is alleging potential customers or tenants did not contact them is difficult. See Murtagh v. Hurley, 40 So.3d 62, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Individual identification of customers who did not call or walk into a claimant’s place of business may not always be necessary. Id. at 65-66 . In *1093 this case, however, we need not concern ourselves with this type of conundrum. R.K. Associates stipulated at the injunction hearing that there were substantially no vacancies in any of their rented space. This is a sufficient basis on which to reverse the injunction in this case.