Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Preliminary Injunctions

26 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City OF Deerfield Beach
  661 F.2d 328· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, as the city's zoning decision interfered with a fundamental right and was not justified by legitimate state interests.
• United States v. State OF Or.
  657 F.2d 1009· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-10 ·cited 62×
  Indian tribes may consent to suit without explicit Congressional authority, and the Yakima Tribe's intervention and agreement to submit disputes to federal court constituted such consent, waiving their sovereign immunity.
• Cnty. OF Alameda v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  520 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-19 ·cited 46×
  A final determination of disallowance under the Social Security Act is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Klaus v. Hi-Shear Corp.
  528 F.2d 225· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 45×
  The court held that preliminary injunctions were improperly issued based on mistaken legal theories, particularly regarding irreparable harm and indispensable parties, and reversed or vacated several injunctions while affirming others.
• Nashville I-40 Steering Comm. v. Buford Ellington
  387 F.2d 179· 6th Cir.· 1967-12-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as plaintiffs failed to show a violation of law or constitutional rights regarding highway route selection, but reversed the dismissal of the Mayor as a party defendant.
• In re Baldwin-United Corp. (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Ins. Litigation) Alaska
  770 F.2d 328· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction under the All-Writs Act to prevent state actions that threatened to impair its jurisdiction over a complex, advanced securities class action and its settlement proceedings.
• Atomic OIL Co. OF Okla., Inc. v. Bardahl OIL Co.
  419 F.2d 1097· 10th Cir.· 1969-12-30 ·cited 30×
  A bond given as a condition precedent to a temporary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c) is supplemented, not supplanted, by a second bond for a permanent injunction, and recovery is permissible on both bonds even if the trial court later determines the injunction was improperly
• In re DeLOREAN Motor Co. v. John Z. DeLOREAN (83-1802)
  755 F.2d 1223· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court's order to escrow sale proceeds, intended to preserve assets for investigation, was a valid preliminary injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, not an attachment governed by state law.
• Nelms v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Indus. of the United States & Canada
  405 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to reinstate the plaintiff to union office and membership.
• Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecomms. Grp.
  900 F.2d 1546· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in basing a preliminary injunction on a finding of 'secondary meaning in the making,' as this doctrine is not recognized under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and the evidence was insufficient to establish actual secondary meaning.
• Armour & Co. v. Freeman
  304 F.2d 404· D.C. Cir.· 1962-02-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary of Agriculture's regulation requiring genuine hams with added moisture to be labeled "Imitation Ham" was arbitrary and capricious on its face, forcing a violation of the Meat Inspection Act.
• William Lowary & Sara Wyatt v. Lexington Local Bd. OF Educ.
  854 F.2d 131· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to allow agency fees to be collected and placed in an escrow account when it found the procedures likely unconstitutional.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. G. Weeks Sec., Inc.
  678 F.2d 649· 6th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 15×
  The court held that issuing a preliminary injunction based on disputed factual issues without allowing live testimony constitutes an abuse of discretion, but an injunction based on legal conclusions from documentary evidence is permissible.
• State OF Neb. v. Norbert T. Tiemann
  510 F.2d 446· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-28 ·cited 14×
  The denial of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is affirmed because the state failed to demonstrate a substantial probability of success on the merits regarding the Administrator's decision to withhold federal highway funds.
• Hornback v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Signalmen
  346 F.2d 161· 6th Cir.· 1965-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for a preliminary injunction, based on the union's commitment to reduce dues for objecting employees.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Prof'l Assocs. & Robert C. LaBine
  731 F.2d 349· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in considering extrinsic evidence to determine if investments were securities and did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
• The Robinswood Cmty. Club v. Volpe
  506 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that under the CEQ guidelines, an environmental impact statement was not required for the highway project because it was not practicable to halt construction, despite federal actions occurring after NEPA's effective date.
• Atkins v. Scott
  597 F.2d 872· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs, and the case should be tried and decided without further delay.
• Bastian v. Lakefront Realty Corp.
  581 F.2d 685· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Lakefront's stock was not required to be registered under Section 12(g)(1) because it was entitled to deregistration under Section 12(g)(4), thus Section 14(a) proxy rules did not apply. The denial of a preliminary injunction was also affirmed.
• Black & Decker v. Hoover Serv. Ctr.
  886 F.2d 1285· Fed. Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction for trademark infringement due to incomplete findings, and that its finding of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for patent infringement was clearly erroneous.
• AMR Servs. Corp. (AMR) v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters ("IBT")
  821 F.2d 162· 2d Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the evidence supported the finding that the picketing was not a dispute over representation under the Railway Labor Act.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Boilermakers v. Local Lodge D129 OF the Cement
  910 F.2d 1056· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 4×
  A labor union's trusteeship imposed on a local lodge is invalid if the local lodge has fewer than ten members at the time of imposition, as it is automatically disbanded and no longer a subordinate body.
• Cascade Local Lodge NO. 297 v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists
  684 F.2d 609· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in its issuance.
• Local 180 OF the Int'l Union, United Auto. Aircraft & Agric. Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. J. I. Case Co.
  281 F.2d 773· 7th Cir.· 1960-08-10 ·cited 2×
  A single circuit judge should not issue an injunction that would effectively decide the merits of an appeal, especially when the trial court has already denied a similar injunction.
• Roberts v. Arledge
  519 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-26
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, finding no clear abuse of discretion by the district court.