“Wal-Mart’s alleged injury was its possible monetary liability resulting from possible future contamination to groundwater through the wells. ‘[T]his court has previously held that the granting of injunctive relief is improper when a plaintiff’s right to recover is based upon a future event,’ [citation omitted]; in this case, the future event is the possible future contamination of the groundwater through the wells. Because the alleged injury is speculative, we conclude that it is insufficient to meet the irreparable injury standard.”
How later courts described this case
- “Wal-Mart’s alleged injury was its possible monetary liability resulting from possible future contamination to groundwater through the wells. ‘[T]his court has previously held that the granting of injunctive relief is improper when a plaintiff’s right to recover is based upon a future event,’ [citation omitted]; in this case, the future event is the possible future contamination of the groundwater through the wells. Because the alleged injury is speculative, we conclude that it is insufficient to meet the irreparable injury standard.”
- mere “speculative” harm is “insufficient to meet the irreparable injury standard”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge
(specially concurring).
A preliminary injunction must be based on four indispensable elements. See Wilson v. Sandstrom, 317 So.2d 732, 736 (Fla.1975). In my opinion, the one in this case is supported by none of them. Apart from that, it’s fine.