entered the injunction, and the Everglades District appealed. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the entry of the injunction based on the chancellor’s determination that the Everglades District’s proposal would serve no useful purpose and would seriously endanger the lands in the Newhall District, would create a serious sanitation problem in a nearby city, and would cause other irreparable injury. Id. at 50. The court explained that it would not ordinarily use its equity power to interfere with the judgment of an administrative board but that the evidence supported the chancellor’s finding that the Everglades District committed “a public -wrong” or violated “substantive rights” without giving an equal benefit in return. See also Brumley v. Dorner, 78 Fla. 495, 83 So. 912 (1919) (<HOLDING>); Dep’t of Transp. v. Burnette, 384 So.2d 916
holding that a board of county commissioners may be enjoined from flooding private property holding that the department of transportation may be enjoined from diverting water flow onto a landowners property holding that notwithstanding language of statute authorizing appointment of a county architect by the board of commissioners of cook county such appointee is not an officer where he has no stated salary but is employed on a commission basis and where his work is generally casual and not continuous even though he is frequently referred to in the records of the county board as an officer holding that a board of county commissioners may not be compelled to implement salary increases fixed by salary board where payment of raises would result in overdrawing amount budgeted for salaries and would require board to transfer funds from elsewhere in budget holding before the apa definition of person was amended to include county that the board of county commission ers of dolores county could not sue the state agency that had ordered reappraisals of real property in dolores county in connection with valuation for ad valorem taxation because the board of county commissioners was not a person under the apa and did not otherwise have authority to sue under statute or constitution