Injunction Pending Appeal

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

• Nathaniel M. Stone, M.D. v. Williams
  356 F.2d 934· 1st Cir.· 1966-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner's application for an injunction pending appeal should be denied due to lack of jurisdiction and standing.
• Polar ICE Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews
  159 So. 2d 672· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-01-21 ·cited 6×
  Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Company appealed the denial of its motion for supersedeas (a stay of an injunction) in a case where the Florida Milk Commission obtained an injunction preventing Polar from operating as a milk distributor after revoking its license. The court held that
• Colonial Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  592 F.2d 1126· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Ford Motor Credit Company, as a wholly owned subsidiary acting for Ford Motor Company in automobile distribution, is subject to the Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act as a matter of law. The court also reaffirmed that Ford Motor's coercive pre-franchise dema
• DOE v. McMILLAN
  442 F.2d 879· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the injunction previously entered should be modified to permit the publication of names of students absent from school, and continued in effect pending expedited litigation.
• Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
  442 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1971-01-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that due to changed circumstances, no temporary relief is required, and the appeal concerning the injunction pending appeal is moot.
• Moraine Indus. Supply, Inc. v. Sterling Rubber Prods. Co.
  891 F.2d 133· 6th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction enforcing noncompetition agreements cannot extend beyond the expiration date of those agreements.
• Aurora Bancshares Corp. & Ralph L. Egeland v. Weston
  777 F.2d 385· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dismissal of a preliminary injunction request, based on discovery violations and unclean hands, is an appealable interlocutory order, and denied a motion to dismiss the appeal.
• The Populist Party v. Herschler
  746 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding Wyoming's ballot access requirements for independent candidates and new political parties, thus denying their motion for an injunction pending appeal.
• Walker v. Lockhart
  678 F.2d 68· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 4×
  The court granted the inmate's petition for an injunction pending appeal, requiring prison officials to maintain his current conditions of confinement.
• Fla. Businessmen for Free Enter. v. State
  499 F. Supp. 346· N.D. Fla.· 1980-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Section 893.147(1) of Florida's 'Head Shop' law is unconstitutionally vague because it prohibits mere possession of drug paraphernalia without requiring proof of the defendant's intent or knowledge of illegal use. The remainder of the law was found constitutio
• Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  517 F.2d 1013· 7th Cir.· 1975-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding no irreparable harm from proceeding with the FTC hearing.
• Impeach Nixon Comm. & Lynne Heidt v. Buck
  498 F.2d 37· 7th Cir.· 1974-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the CTA's denial of the plaintiffs' advertisement was likely unconstitutional, and a preliminary injunction should issue.
• Bulluck v. Washington
  452 F.2d 1385· D.C. Cir.· 1971-11-03 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the motion for an injunction, finding no significant role of the challenged statute in the Board's decision to terminate the program.
• Miltenberger v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  450 F.2d 971· 4th Cir.· 1971-10-20 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the application for an injunction pending appeal, finding no substantial prospect of success on appeal and significant practical impediments to preservation.
• Beryl N. Jones v. Caddo Parish Sch. Bd.
  392 F.2d 721· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary reversal was not appropriate, but ordered that appellants be given an opportunity to test faculty desegregation compliance before the next school year.
• Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Dist. of Columbia v. Cap. Transit Co.
  214 F.2d 242· D.C. Cir.· 1954-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court granted an injunction pending appeal, enjoining the company from paying a dividend and redeeming bonds, pending further investigation and report.
• United States v. Dollar
  193 F.2d 114· 9th Cir.· 1951-11-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prior judgments in Dollar v. Land were not res judicata against the United States, contrary to the trial court's finding.
• Peacock v. Feaster
  52 Fla. 563· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court granted an injunction to restrain the execution of a judgment pending appeal. The appellants were required to post a bond to ensure payment of the judgment if the appeal failed.
• Cambridge LEE Indus., Inc. v. The United States
  916 F.2d 1578· Fed. Cir.· 1990-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because subsequent final judgment by the Court of International Trade rendered the issue of a preliminary injunction moot. Developments in the case made the appeal moot.
• United States v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'n
  791 F.2d 831· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction against School Board elections, as the prior appellate decision did not resolve the Section 2 Voting Rights Act claim.
• Immogene Hurley v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  676 F.2d 1095· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective relief, including the restoration of benefit payments, as a necessary consequence of future compliance with federal law, even if it impacts the state treasury.
• Dole v. Carter
  569 F.2d 1109· 10th Cir.· 1977-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the dispute over the return of the crown of St. Stephen is a nonjusticiable political question, and thus denied the motion for an injunction pending appeal.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Doyle Combs
  484 F.2d 145· 6th Cir.· 1973-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires referral to the National Mediation Board to determine if Motor Transport is a 'carrier' under the Railway Labor Act before a federal court can enjoin picketing.
• Hall v. Issaquena Cnty. Bd. OF Supervisors
  453 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parties' suggested course of action to remand the case to the District Court for disposition in accordance with a prior order is desirable.
• Grimes v. Commonwealth OF Ky.
  451 F.2d 1353· 6th Cir.· 1971-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion for an injunction pending appeal.
• McKENZIE v. Col. Paul B. Schuppener
  415 F.2d 1056· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court should consider the merits of the injunction pending appeal, rather than dismissing based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• United States v. Wilcox Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  366 F.2d 769· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that despite potential inconvenience, a free-choice desegregation plan must be implemented for the upcoming school term due to the long delay since Brown v. Board of Education.
• The Atchison v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen
  324 F.2d 902· 7th Cir.· 1963-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court abstains from ruling on the injunction request pending appeal due to intervening Congressional legislation addressing the underlying labor dispute.
• Underwood v. Maloney
  245 F.2d 797· 3d Cir.· 1957-06-12 ·cited 1×
  The court ordered an injunction to maintain the status quo of union relations pending appeal, requiring security from all parties.
• Jaffan Int'l, LLC v. Radhe Krishna Props., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-01
  The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pending appeal because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divested it of jurisdiction to review the plaintiff's challenge to a state court judgment, and denied the defendant's motion for sanctions without prejudice.
• Ladies Mem'l Ass'n Inc v. City of Pensacola Fla.
  N.D. Fla.· 2020-10-26
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding they were unlikely to succeed on the merits and would not suffer irreparable harm.
• Lynch v. Gonzalez
  Del. Ch.· 2020-07-31
  The Court granted the Defendants' Motion to Vacate the status quo order (SQO) and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Maintain the SQO pending appeal. The Court found that the SQO, initially entered based on the plaintiff Lynch's allegations, should be vacated because post-trial fin
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
  841 F.2d 1132· D.C. Cir.· 1988-02-19
• JOS. Schlitz Brewing Co. Container Div. (Longview Tex. Container Plant) v. General Drivers
  618 F.2d 1184· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-24
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law thorough.
• Sargent v. Genesco, Inc.
  458 F.2d 9· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-17
• Shelton v. Brunson
  454 F.2d 737· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-09
• Rawlings v. Hardaway
  427 F.2d 1167· 4th Cir.· 1970-06-25
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an interlocutory injunction because the petitioner failed to show irreparable harm or purposeful discrimination.
• Norris Mfg. Co. v. R. E. Darling Co., Inc.
  338 F.2d 326· 4th Cir.· 1964-11-09
  The District Court's order to release funds to secure a state court injunction bond was a proper exercise of discretion, but requires remand for clarification of the bond's terms.