Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 65(B)

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

• Luther F. Grant and Sirrka v. Grant
  282 F.2d 165· 2d Cir.· 1960-07-28 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the order denying the government's motion to dissolve a stay and vacate an order to show cause in a pre-indictment motion to suppress evidence is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Church OF Scientology Flag Serv. ORG., Inc. v. City OF Clearwater
  777 F.2d 598· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 57×
  The court vacated injunctions against a repealed ordinance due to mootness, dismissed appeals of interlocutory orders regarding a successor ordinance as improvidently granted, and affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
• In re Lustron Corp. Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Lustron Corp.
  184 F.2d 789· 7th Cir.· 1950-10-23 ·cited 36×
  The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue a restraining order to preserve the estate and prevent irreparable harm, and it did not err in refusing to transfer the case to a district where no bankruptcy petition was pending.
• Pas P. Torres, Jr. v. First State Bank OF Sierra Cnty.
  588 F.2d 1322· 10th Cir.· 1978-12-18 ·cited 30×
  A state court's erroneous order, even if violating due process, does not constitute "under color of law" for a § 1983 claim when private parties are involved and the state merely provides the forum.
• Clements Wire & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  589 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court's order, though initially termed a TRO, was a preliminary injunction because it exceeded the 20-day limit and was therefore appealable. The injunction was improperly granted and vacated.
• In re William M. Kunstler. In re Barry Nakell. In re Lewis Pitts v. Britt
  914 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Rule 11 sanctions can be imposed after a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), and that the attorneys violated Rule 11 by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law, and by filing the complaint for an improper purpose.
• In re Vuitton ET Fils S.A.
  606 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-25 ·cited 19×
  A plaintiff is entitled to an ex parte temporary restraining order when a proper showing of immediate and irreparable injury is made and notice is impracticable, particularly in trademark infringement cases where confusion is likely.
• In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litig. Magnesco Rests., Inc. v. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips, Inc.
  689 F.2d 1150· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a temporary restraining order extended indefinitely by consent becomes appealable as a preliminary injunction, and that a civil contempt order arising from such an order is also appealable. The court affirmed the finding of contempt against Arthur Treacher's a
• SAN Francisco Real Est. Invs. v. Real Est. Inv. Tr. OF Am.
  692 F.2d 814· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 12×
  A district court's temporary restraining order extending a tender offer's proration date is improper and appealable if it functions as a preliminary injunction.
• LOS Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  650 F.2d 1004· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a temporary restraining order, as the plaintiffs raised serious questions on the merits and the balance of hardships tipped in their favor, and the Board's March 16 Order itself constituted de jure discrimination.
• Tefel v. Reno
  972 F. Supp. 623· S.D. Fla.· 1997-06-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to consider the class action complaint and granted a temporary restraining order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the injunction would serve the publi
• State OF Me. v. FRI
  483 F.2d 439· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a temporary restraining order that had not yet exceeded its statutory ten-day limit, even if extended by an additional ten days.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Comcoa Ltd.
  887 F. Supp. 1521· S.D. Fla.· 1995-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an attorney's transfer of client funds in violation of a temporary restraining order, even if done in good faith belief of ownership, constitutes contempt of court.
• Gonzalez v. Pure Living Acquisitions
  2017 WL 9398651· M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because it was procedurally and substantively deficient.
• United States v. Jenkins
  974 F.2d 32· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss a pretrial restraining order issued under RICO is an immediately appealable interlocutory order, and the order itself was not an impermissible prior restraint or overbroad.
• Church of Scientology Flag Servs. Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater
  756 F. Supp. 1498· M.D. Fla.· 1991-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The Court holds that Scientology has standing to sue and that Clearwater Ordinance 3479-84 is constitutional. The Court grants Scientology's motion for partial summary judgment on standing but denies it on other issues, while denying Clearwater's motion on standing but granting i
• Jorgenson v. Cnty. of Volusia
  625 F. Supp. 1543· M.D. Fla.· 1986-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order, finding the Volusia County ordinance prohibiting topless dancing in establishments serving alcohol to be constitutional under the Twenty-first Amendment.
• Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. OF Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
  472 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 2×
  A temporary restraining order issued by a state court remains in full force and effect after removal to federal court until dissolved or modified by the federal district court, irrespective of state-law time limitations.
• Guenther v. McPherson
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-24
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, finding the respondent in civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders and ordering her arrest and custody until she purges her contempt.
• SOS Mobile Med. Care, LLC v. Gulledge
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-16
  The court granted the plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for breach of contract and irreparable harm.
• Modaxo Traffic Mgmt. USA, Inc. v. Collins
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-26
  The court denied Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order because it failed to demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm and provide sufficient justification for ex parte relief.
• San Mar Corp. v. Rough
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-07
  The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding sufficient grounds for ex parte relief due to the risk of irreparable harm from the potential disclosure of trade secrets and confidential information.
• McLaughlin v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-14
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary emergency circumstances for proceeding without notice to the defendants. The court deferred consideration of a preliminary injunction pending service and respon
• Jetchill Ltd v. Shenzhen Jiarui Minghui Trading Co., Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-13
  The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Defendant's motion to dissolve the TRO as moot because it expired by operation of law, and denying Plaintiff's motion to extend the TRO because it also expired and further extension would require treating it as a preliminary injunction, wh
• Bottom Line Sys. LLC v. Miller
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-03
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessity of proceeding without notice to the defendant.
• Dixon v. Reed
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-22
  The court held that a prisoner's transfer moots her claim for injunctive relief related to the prior institution.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Cobb
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-22
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm and the impracticality of providing notice to the defendant.
• Paint Nail Bar Franchise Co., LLC v. Obienterprise, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-08
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden for a temporary restraining order without notice.
• Johnson v. Ally Fin. Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-04
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
• Batista v. Saba
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-07
  The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for leave to deposit funds without prejudice.
• Cady v. Palmer
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order failed due to procedural deficiencies and substantive defects in the complaint and motion.
• Gayle v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-18
  The court recommended denial of the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because it failed to meet the required legal standards and lacked specific factual allegations.
• We The People Health & Wellness Ctr. LLC v. Parus
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-02
  The court denied the ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient justification for proceeding without notice to the defendant.
• McMinn v. ATP Flight Acad., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-16
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that notice and a hearing were impractical or impossible. The court will consider the preliminary injunction request after defendants are served and have an opportunity to r
• Intra Mgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Schnairsohn
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-02
  The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding that the defendant's alleged defamatory statements were made in furtherance of tortious interference and met the criteria for injunctive relief.
• Matthews v. Matthews
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-07
  The court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order, prohibiting the removal of the child from the jurisdiction but denying the surrender of the Respondent's travel documents and temporary custody.
• Locatell v. Locatell
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-02
  The court granted the Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding he met the burden to warrant its issuance.
• Fokiss, Inc. v. TLM Global, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-04-23
  The court held that the temporary restraining order should be dissolved because the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirement of certifying efforts to provide notice to the opposing party.
• Badilla Meza v. Nunez Reyes
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-22
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for a temporary restraining order, ordering service of process and surrender of travel documents but denying the immediate arrest and removal of the child.
• Frishberg v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-01-09
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining defendants from placing holds on academic records or preventing class enrollment.
• Konieczko v. Orange Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-11-02
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining Order because it failed to meet the procedural and substantive requirements.
• Women in Struggle v. Bain
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-10-06
  The court denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order because they failed to establish standing, the complaint constituted a shotgun pleading, and they did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Kova Commercial of Naples, LLC v. Sabin
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-17
  The court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because it failed to establish the irreparable nature of the threatened injury and the impracticality of providing notice to the defendant.
• Awareness Ave. Jewelry LLC v. The P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns identified on Schedule "A"
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-01-18
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, finding that they demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their copyright infringement claim and that irreparable harm would occur without immediate relief.
• Benjamin v. Soward
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-31
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Torres v. Zingale
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-24
  The court denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because it was procedurally and substantively deficient.
• P'rs Insight, LLC v. Gill
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-26
  The court denied the motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs failed to meet the stringent requirements for such relief. The court deferred ruling on the preliminary injunction pending the defendants' response.
• Gonzalez v. Solin
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-06-03
  The court granted in part and denied in part the petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the child's removal from the jurisdiction and scheduling an expedited hearing.
• Freedom Fresh, LLC v. Crystal Cruises, LLC.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-02-04
  The court granted Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order, finding that the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) trust assets were being dissipated.
• Consistent Funding LLC v. S. Fla. Constr. of Naples Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-08-03
  The court held that a party cannot obtain a traditional injunction without asserting an independent cause of action, and that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order.