With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". County, 418 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fredericks v. Blake, 382 So.2d 368, 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The apparent adequacy of remedies at law which Mr. Stanberry has thus far successfully pursued weighs, moreover, against resort to injunctive remedies. See, e.g., Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881, 885 (Fla.1972); Glades Oumers Ass’n v. Prentiss, 768 So.2d 1245, 1245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Weinstein v. Aisenberg, 758 So.2d 705, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); In re Estate of Yerex, 651 So.2d 220, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); B.G.H. Ins. Syndicate v. Presidential Fire & Cas. Co., 549 So.2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Separation of powers considerations also figure in. See Dep’t of Children and Family Servs. v. I.C., 742 So.2d 401, 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>); St. Lucie County v. Town of St. Lucie Vill.,

A: holding that where a district courts preliminary injunction preventing the appellant from terminating its agreement with the defendant had expired the appellants appeal of the district courts decision to grant that injunction was moot
B: holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified
C: holding circuit courts injunction interfered with the general operations of the agency
D: holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim
C.