Injunction Pendente Lite

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

• Dino DeLAURENTIIS Cinemato-Grafica v. D-150, Inc.
  366 F.2d 373· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-16 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the movant made a sufficient showing of probable success and possible irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction, reversing the district court's denial.
• Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  849 F.2d 1354· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the FTC's order, holding that Orkin's unilateral breach of over 200,000 customer contracts by increasing fixed annual renewal fees constituted an unfair act or practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
• Foundry Servs., Inc. v. Beneflux Corp.
  206 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1953-07-14 ·cited 41×
  The court held that an injunction pendente lite was improvidently granted because the plaintiff failed to show irreparable injury, as any loss from competition could be adequately redressed by money damages.
• ALL Am. Airways, Inc. v. Elderd
  209 F.2d 247· 2d Cir.· 1954-01-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the order dismissing counterclaims as to "related defendants" and requiring amendment of the answer was not an appealable order.
• N. OIL Co., Inc. v. Socony Mobil OIL Co., Inc.
  347 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony from a corporate employee, without a sufficient showing of his authority to make the statement on behalf of the corporation, was prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• City of Jacksonville v. Giller
  102 Fla. 92· Fla.· 1931-06-23 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld an interlocutory injunction protecting the Gillers' possession of real property and buildings they occupied under a lease, holding that the City of Jacksonville could not interfere with their actual possession without following proper legal proced
• United States v. Marin
  651 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the leases and sublease were void due to lack of corporate authorization and misrepresentations, and that the defendants were liable for damages as trespassers. Ancillary jurisdiction was proper.
• In the Matters of Webcor, Inc.
  392 F.2d 893· 7th Cir.· 1968-02-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the referee did not abuse his discretion in adjudicating the corporations bankrupt and confirming the sale of assets, as the corporations had ample time to file a plan and the sale was conducted properly.
• ALL Am. Airways, Inc. v. Vill. of Cedar-Hurst
  201 F.2d 273· 2d Cir.· 1953-01-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there is a substantial question regarding the ordinance's validity against federal supremacy, and thus the injunction against its enforcement should be continued pending trial.
• Costandi v. Aamco Automatic Transmissions, Inc.
  456 F.2d 941· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against franchisees using the AAMCO trademark.
• Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Spunize Co. OF Am.
  268 F.2d 522· 2d Cir.· 1959-07-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting an injunction to stay a prior filed patent infringement suit, as the first-filed action should generally proceed.
• Hock v. 250 N. AVE. Corp.
  142 F.2d 435· 2d Cir.· 1944-04-17 ·cited 12×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a tenant's action seeking to enjoin an eviction based on alleged violations of rent regulations, as the Emergency Price Control Act only permits private suits for rent overcharges.
• Betmar Hats, Inc. v. Young Am. Hats, Inc.
  116 F.2d 956· 2d Cir.· 1941-01-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that persistent threats to customers regarding patent infringement, unsupported by a lawsuit to validate the patent, are grounds for an injunction.
• Tower Credit Corp. v. State
  187 So. 2d 923· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-06-16 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Securities Commission sought to enjoin and appoint a receiver over multiple loan companies and individuals for fraudulent securities practices. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order and vacate the
• Boston Wool Trade Ass'n v. Snyder
  161 F.2d 648· D.C. Cir.· 1947-05-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the action because the exclusive jurisdiction for customs duty disputes lies with the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
• Henderson v. First Tr. & Sav. Bank
  107 Fla. 212· Fla.· 1932-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether an executor can recover a legacy from a legatee when estate assets prove insufficient to pay debts, and whether the executor can also recover additional shares purchased by the legatee with her own funds using a right incidental to the
• PAN Am. Computer Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp.
  652 F.2d 215· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that PACC's assignment of maintenance duties constituted just cause for DGC to terminate the dealership agreement and warranted dissolution of the injunction.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Harrison
  184 F.2d 691· D.C. Cir.· 1950-07-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a petition for rehearing and a motion to intervene should be denied because the court should not prejudge the res judicata issues pending before administrative bodies.
• Woods v. Carol Mgmt. Corp.
  168 F.2d 791· 2d Cir.· 1948-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Housing Expediter had the authority to inspect defendants' housing accommodations and that the lower court erred in denying an injunction pendente lite.
• N. Petrochemical Co. v. Tomlinson
  484 F.2d 1057· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a trade secret owner is not entitled to an injunction against use of the secret for a period longer than it would have taken to independently develop it, especially when the alleged thief has not yet commercially exploited the secret.
• United States v. Springer
  478 F.2d 43· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted without a final judgment and proof of irreparable harm.
• Murphy v. Bankers Commercial Corp.
  203 F.2d 645· 2d Cir.· 1953-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court should not enjoin foreclosure proceedings instituted prior to bankruptcy when the security interest was acquired more than four months before filing, absent proof of irreparable injury.
• Franklin v. Brown
  279 So. 2d 83· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-06-12
  The Florida District Court of Appeal declined to answer certified questions from a circuit court regarding whether the proceeds of a savings account held in trust for a named beneficiary are estate assets subject to creditor claims and whether a court may temporarily restrain dis
• Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1416, AFL-CIO v. Ariadne Shipping Co.
  212 So. 2d 93· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-07-09
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, deferred ruling on an interlocutory appeal concerning the reinstatement of a bond. The court found that the issue raised in the interlocutory appeal was also part of a pending appeal from the final judgment, and therefore, it
• Amity Fabrics, Inc. v. Dorfman
  322 F.2d 429· D.C. Cir.· 1963-07-29
  The court denied the appellant's motions for summary reversal and injunction pendente lite, finding that Congress likely agreed with the Tariff Commission's decision not to create a separate classification for waterproof cloth.
• United States v. Wilson Williams, Inc.
  277 F.2d 535· 2d Cir.· 1960-04-27
  The district court properly exercised its discretion in enjoining the distribution of the drug R.X.-120.
• Walt Disney Prods. (Inc.) v. Souvaine Selective Pictures, Inc.
  192 F.2d 856· 2d Cir.· 1951-12-06
  The court held that the record did not support a finding that the title 'Alice in Wonderland' had acquired a secondary meaning, thus no abuse of discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Merrimac Hat Corp. v. Crown Overall MFG. Co.
  186 F.2d 505· 2d Cir.· 1951-01-05
• Fla. Power Corp. v. Pinellas Util. Bd.
  181 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1950-04-18
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the suit because no substantial federal question was presented, and the issues raised were primarily matters of state law.
• Dent v. Alaska Placer Co.
  177 F.2d 8· 9th Cir.· 1949-10-04
  The court held that the 1947 act did not validate prior mineral locations in navigable riverbeds and that miners' rules cannot expand statutory rights granted by Congress.
• Coffey v. Smith
  159 F.2d 277· 7th Cir.· 1946-12-24
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of a price control order, as exclusive jurisdiction rests with the Emergency Court of Appeals.
• Bishpam v. Mayo
  112 Fla. 115· Fla.· 1933-10-03
  In this companion case, the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a complainant seeking to enjoin enforcement of agricultural production statutes could be bound by the outcome in parallel litigation. The court modified the dismissal to preserve the complainant's right to benefi