Action For Injunction

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

• Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Celina Mestre
  701 F.2d 1365· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 288×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Pitney Bowes' appeal regarding the Rotary Collator Agreement and post-expiration rights because those issues were not finally decided by the district court. The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the Vertical
• Gibson Wine Co., Inc. v. Snyder
  194 F.2d 329· D.C. Cir.· 1952-01-10 ·cited 98×
  The Deputy Commissioner's ruling excluding wine made from the boysen variety of blackberry from the designation 'blackberry wine' was an invalid amendment to the existing regulation because it was not preceded by a hearing or approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.
• The Del. & Hudson Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union
  450 F.2d 603· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-31 ·cited 92×
  The court held that after the Railway Labor Act's procedures are exhausted and bargaining reaches an impasse, a union may lawfully conduct selective strikes against some carriers to exert economic pressure for a national agreement.
• NEW Jersey Educ. Ass'n v. Burke
  579 F.2d 764· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-03 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, and that the state court judgment's res judicata effect on federal claims depends on whether those claims were actually litigated in state court.
• Times Publ'g Co. v. Williams
  222 So. 2d 470· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-05-09 ·cited 74×
  Times Publishing Company and others appealed a trial court's dismissal of their complaint seeking to enjoin the Pinellas County School Board from holding closed meetings in violation of Florida's 1967 "Government in the Sunshine Law." The court reversed, holding that the statute
• Se. Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Watson
  697 F.2d 1305· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 60×
  The court held that ANILCA subsection 503(h)(3) requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for bulk sampling activities, and that the proposed 1980-83 amendment activities constitute bulk sampling, thus requiring an EIS before Forest Service authorization.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha
  623 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 59×
  Benefits under an ERISA-covered pension plan are not subject to garnishment by a creditor of a plan beneficiary, and federal courts may enjoin such garnishments under ERISA's express authorization exception to the anti-injunction act.
• Curran v. Laird
  420 F.2d 122· D.C. Cir.· 1969-11-12 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the summary judgment denying an injunction, but disagreed on the standing of one party to challenge the National Defense Reserve Fleet Act. The majority found the matter committed to agency discretion, while the dissent argued for broader standing based on inju
• Emil F. Goldhaber v. Foley
  698 F.2d 193· 3d Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 50×
  The government's position in the entire proceedings was substantially justified, despite losing on one issue.
• Jones v. Alexander
  609 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-10 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the Secretary of the Army properly remedied the defect in the 1975 promotion selection board by convening a relook board, and that the plaintiff's nonselection by these boards constituted the necessary two pass overs for release from active duty.
• Brown v. Dunne
  409 F.2d 341· 7th Cir.· 1969-02-13 ·cited 44×
• United States v. Williams
  441 F.2d 637· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the defendants were entitled to a jury trial on the legal issues of trespass and title, the evidence was insufficient to create a jury question, thus a directed verdict for the government was proper as to Williams. However, the court reversed and remande
• OVE Gustavsson Contracting Co., Inc. v. Floete
  278 F.2d 912· 2d Cir.· 1960-05-25 ·cited 42×
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the suit was against the United States and thus subject to the Tucker Act's jurisdictional requirements, which the district court lacked.
• Matthews v. The United States
  713 F.2d 677· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Corps abused its discretion by allowing a private dock in a public recreation area and that the plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees for this claim, but affirmed the denial of an injunction for sewage discharge and the finding on the restrictive coven
• Commodore Plaza AT Century 21 Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cohen
  350 So. 2d 502· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-09-20 ·cited 38×
  The Commodore Plaza Condominium Association appeals from multiple orders in a breach of lease dispute with Norman Cohen, Trustee, who sought to recover unpaid rental payments for recreational facilities. The court affirmed most of the trial court's judgment while remanding the ma
• Richardson v. United States
  465 F.2d 844· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff, a citizen-taxpayer, lacked standing to obtain an injunction requiring the CIA to account for funds, as the historical development of standing doctrine does not permit such an action.
• Grano v. Barry
  783 F.2d 1104· D.C. Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that plaintiffs were prevailing parties entitled to attorneys' fees for securing a pre-election injunction, but remanded for reconsideration of the 'special circumstances' defense and specific fee calculations.
• Shell OIL Co. v. Train
  585 F.2d 408· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed Shell's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the actions of the state regional board were not reviewable federal agency actions.
• Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  246 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1957-06-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the railroad yard closing dispute was not a labor dispute under the Railway Labor Act or Norris-LaGuardia Act, and thus the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the strike due to irreparable harm to interstate commerce.
• Alton BOX Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp.
  682 F.2d 1267· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred federal courts from enjoining the state court action, and there was no independent federal jurisdiction for declaratory relief on a preemption defense.
• Reed v. Honorable W. B. Franke
  297 F.2d 17· 4th Cir.· 1961-11-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Navy regulation authorizing administrative discharge was valid and that statutory post-discharge review procedures satisfied due process requirements.
• Wilson Bros. v. Textile Workers Union OF Am.
  224 F.2d 176· 2d Cir.· 1955-06-02 ·cited 32×
  Orders granting a stay pending arbitration are not appealable interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(1) when the underlying action is equitable in nature.
• Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. Co., Inc.
  148 F.2d 407· 6th Cir.· 1945-03-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that in a non-jury case dismissed under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
• Groos Nat'l Bank & Clinton Manges v. Comptroller OF the Currency
  573 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of a 1973 agreement between a bank and the Comptroller, as such actions are barred by 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i) except as provided within the administrative re
• Mitchell v. E-Z WAY Towers, Inc.
  269 F.2d 126· 5th Cir.· 1959-07-30 ·cited 31×
  The court should affirm the order for a more definite statement but reverse the dismissal and remand to allow the plaintiff time to comply.
• Crossen v. Breckenridge
  446 F.2d 833· 6th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 30×
  Appellants Crossen and Craddock have standing and presented a case or controversy; appellant Pozzuto and the Women's Liberation Group lack standing. A three-judge court must be convened for the remaining appellants.
• Simons v. Vinson
  394 F.2d 732· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that sovereign immunity should not be permitted to nullify a mandatory constitutional command and that the United States Courts should be open to allow appellants to prove their ownership of property.
• Douglas v. Webber
  99 Fla. 755· Fla.· 1930-04-08 ·cited 29×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a lower court decree invalidating a local legislative act relating to Marion County Highway Bonds on the ground that the required notice of the proposed local legislation was not properly published and established in the legislature as mandated
• Cell Assocs., Inc. v. Nat'l Insts. OF Health
  579 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Privacy Act of 1974 does not authorize injunctive relief to prevent the disclosure of agency records, and that a corporation lacks standing as an 'individual' under the Act.
• Hunt v. Local Bd. NO. 197
  438 F.2d 1128· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction in the district court because his claims involved factual determinations and discretionary judgments by the local board, which are barred from pre-induction review by statute.
• United States v. Seigel
  168 F.2d 143· D.C. Cir.· 1948-02-09 ·cited 28×
  A party who was not a party to the record in the lower court and made no effort to become one cannot appeal the judgment.
• Bresgal v. Brock
  833 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-18 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment and injunction, but modified the injunction in part, and affirmed the denial of attorney's fees.
• Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist. v. Hoffman
  597 F.2d 617· 8th Cir.· 1979-04-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that Lake Minnetonka is not a "navigable water of the United States" under the Rivers and Harbors Act because it lacks an interstate waterway connection, but construction of dams and placement of riprap are regulated activities under Section 404 of the Federal Wate
• Sinai Hosp. OF Baltimore, Inc. v. Nat'l Benefit Fund FOR Hosp. & Health Care Emps.
  697 F.2d 562· 4th Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the Fund, as a creature of the collective bargaining agreements, is bound by their terms regarding benefit levels and cannot unilaterally alter them.
• Tomasello, Inc. v. Santos
  394 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-03-04 ·cited 26×
  This case concerns the enforceability of a non-competition clause in an employment contract. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by modifying the geographical scope of the clause when that issue was not properly raised or tried, affirming the contract's original t
• Dewitt Dillon v. The State of Mont.
  634 F.2d 463· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-23 ·cited 26×
  The Tax Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 1341) bars federal court jurisdiction over suits seeking to enjoin, suspend, or restrain the collection of state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy is available in state courts, including suits for tax refunds.
• Argosy Ltd. v. Hennigan
  404 F.2d 14· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-05 ·cited 26×
  The district court correctly dismissed the action for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, as the determination of whether an article is an import falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Customs Court.
• Bowles v. J. J. Schmitt & Co., Inc.
  170 F.2d 617· 2d Cir.· 1948-11-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to enter the judgment based on the confession, as it was a valid agreement between the parties, and affirmed the denial of the motions to vacate.
• McGRUDER v. Necaise
  733 F.2d 1146· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 25×
  Prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages liability for actions taken within the scope of their prosecutorial duties, and the State is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
• Goldsmith v. Major General James W. Sutherland
  426 F.2d 1395· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $10,000, thus the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
• Stamler v. Hon. Edwin E. Willis
  415 F.2d 1365· 7th Cir.· 1969-08-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the action against Congressional defendants could be dismissed due to the Speech or Debate Clause and availability of relief against other parties, the dismissal of the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney was improper and the case should be remanded for c
• McLEOD v. Local 476
  288 F.2d 198· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-14 ·cited 24×
  The District Court lacked jurisdiction to review the National Labor Relations Board's decision to conduct a representation election, as the appellee's claim did not present a substantial constitutional question.
• Jacobs v. Tawes
  250 F.2d 611· 4th Cir.· 1957-12-26 ·cited 24×
  A single judge may dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction, even if a three-judge panel would otherwise be required for an injunction.
• Burton v. Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc.
  244 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1957-04-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as serious legal questions were presented and the injunction served to preserve the status quo pending final determination.
• Guadamuz v. Bowen
  859 F.2d 762· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred by not deferring to the Secretary's interpretation of attorneys' fees provisions and associated procedures, finding them to be within the Secretary's discretion and not contrary to statute or the APA.
• In re Johns-Manville Corp. v. The Equity Sec. Holders Comm.
  801 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 23×
  The dissent argues the court should affirm the lower court's decision, finding that the Equity Committee's request for a shareholder meeting constitutes an abuse of process and would unduly delay a complex reorganization.
• La. Power & Light Co. v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  456 F.2d 326· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case based on LP&L's failure to demonstrate irreparable injury and in concluding that the FPC had unquestionable jurisdiction, reversing the dismissal and remanding for further fact development.
• Jones v. Wade
  479 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-30 ·cited 22×
  The court granted a petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the prior panel decision.
• Grosvenor Burnett v. Lt. General John J. Tolson
  474 F.2d 877· 4th Cir.· 1973-02-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement, and that mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 was inappropriate as there was no clear right or duty to issue the permit.
• Brawner Bldg., Inc. v. Shehyn
  442 F.2d 847· D.C. Cir.· 1971-02-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the District Court erred in deciding the merits of the zoning dispute without first requiring the parties to exhaust administrative remedies before the Board of Zoning Adjustment, applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.