v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995). Analysis We agree with DOT and the Authority that the circuit court’s appellate opinion violated due process and misapplied the law that defines the appropriate scope of appellate review. The basic requirements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., Cavalier v. Ignas, 290 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla.1974) (“[T]he fundamental principle of due process of law demands notice and an opportunity to be heard before final judgment.”). DOT and the Authority were denied both when the circuit court addressed issues affecting them that had never been raised in the proceedings below and ordered injunctive and other relief against them with no prior notice. Cf. Spradley v. Old Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Cardinal Inv. Group, Inc. v. Giles,
holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim recognizing that an injunction cannot bind parties who are not before this court holding that trial court erred by entering an injunction sua sponte as an injunction cannot be entered unless a pleading requests one holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy