Injunction

5,622 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 6,126 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-Housemen & Helpers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  899 F.2d 143· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while Ligurotis could be held in contempt for filing a lawsuit that interfered with court-appointed officers, he could not be compelled to force other parties to dismiss their claims with prejudice as a condition of purging contempt. The court also found that
• Holiday Pines Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Wetherington
  557 So. 2d 243· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-03-07 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  An order determining class representation and certifying a class is not reviewable, but a temporary injunction is reversed because it disturbs the status quo and lacks findings of irreparable harm and clear legal right.
• Dick Gregory v. Depte
  896 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1990-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the two-can per customer per month sanction as a coercive civil contempt, appealable as an injunction, but vacated the $10.00 per can sanction for lack of evidentiary basis and remanded for clarification of its nature.
• Lakewood ON THE Green Villas Ass'n, Inc. v. Pomerantz
  556 So. 2d 505· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-02-07 ·cited 6×
  A contractual provision for attorney's fees to the prevailing party in litigation arising from the contract is mandatory and cannot be denied by the court.
• Hernando Cnty. v. Budget Inns OF Fla., Inc.
  555 So. 2d 1319· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-01-25 ·cited 6×
  A county cannot constitutionally require a developer to promise to build a frontage road in the future as a condition for a building permit when there is no present need and no showing of immediate future need.
• Marathon Petroleum Co. v. Pendleton
  889 F.2d 1509· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a franchisor's past acceptance of late payments does not preclude termination under the PMPA if the franchisee remains chronically late and has been put on notice that such practices will not be tolerated indefinitely. Furthermore, less than 90 days notice is
• Royal Crown Cola Co. v. The Coca-Cola Co.
  887 F.2d 1480· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-13 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A plaintiff is not a "prevailing party" entitled to attorney's fees under Clayton Act § 16 if their lawsuit was not a substantial factor in causing the defendants' remedial action, especially when other significant factors, like FTC intervention, are present.
• McLAUGHLIN v. Cnty. OF Riverside & Cois Byrd as Sheriff
  888 F.2d 1276· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a 36-hour probable cause determination period is constitutionally permissible and that arrestees do not have a right to be physically present at such determinations.
• Ulmet v. United States
  888 F.2d 1028· 4th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the appellant's claim for interlocutory equitable relief, affirming the dismissal.
• Newsom v. Norris
  888 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while inmates have no property interest in continued employment as inmate advisors, they do have a liberty interest protected by the First Amendment against retaliation for exercising their speech rights.
• Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  723 F. Supp. 669· M.D. Fla.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court must consider four factors to grant a preliminary injunction: likelihood of prevailing on merits, irreparable injury, harm to opposing parties, and public interest.
• Black & Decker v. Hoover Serv. Ctr.
  886 F.2d 1285· Fed. Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  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.
• OIL, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Amoco OIL Co. (Salt Lake City Refinery)
  885 F.2d 697· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 6×·via Status Quo Injunction
  The court held that federal courts should not decide the merits of a labor dispute, even when considering injunctive relief pending arbitration, as this encroaches on the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
• Hartman v. Lyng
  884 F.2d 1103· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment holding FmHA officials in civil contempt for violating a preliminary injunction, but affirmed the denial of damages and attorney's fees.
• Septembertide Publ'g v. Stein & DAY, Inc.
  884 F.2d 675· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the author's third-party beneficiary rights to two-thirds of the paperback publication proceeds vested prior to the publisher's assignment of contract rights to a secured creditor, thus the author's rights are superior to the creditor's claim on that portion.
• NEW ERA Publ'ns Int'l v. Holt
  884 F.2d 659· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judges argue that the panel opinion's language risks misunderstanding copyright law regarding fair use of unpublished works and the availability of injunctions, even though the panel's specific holding was narrow.
• Chipps v. U.S.D.C. FOR THE M.D. OF PA
  882 F.2d 72· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the district court correctly dismissed the frivolous lawsuit and had authority to restrict future filings due to vexatious litigation, the scope of the injunction should be limited to matters concerning the specific student loan dispute.
• Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page
  880 F.2d 675· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A business can be enjoined from using a telephone number that is confusingly similar to a competitor's number, even if the number spells a generic term, to prevent public confusion.
• Fechter v. HMW Indus., Inc.
  879 F.2d 1111· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly issued against corporate defendants Clabir and HMW Industries regarding Count II of the complaint, but vacated the injunctions against individual defendants and HamTech.
• Portland Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Advocates FOR Life, Inc.
  877 F.2d 787· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that non-parties can be held in civil contempt for violating a preliminary injunction if they had actual knowledge and acted in concert with the named parties. The court also held that failure to provide a transcript of the contempt hearing prevents appellate revie
• Askins v. Dist. OF Columbia
  877 F.2d 94· D.C. Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice via summary judgment, as the plaintiff failed to establish an essential element of the claim.
• The Continuum Co., Inc. v. Incepts, Inc.
  873 F.2d 801· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 6×·via Wrongful Injunction
  The court continued the stay of the district court's order increasing the bond and dissolving the injunction, pending appeal.
• City OF Sunrise v. News & Sun-Sentinel Co.
  542 So. 2d 1354· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court's decision, holding that a private meeting between a city mayor and a city employee regarding employee discipline is not subject to the Sunshine Law. The court reasoned that the Sunshine Law applies to meetings of boards
• The Coastal Corp. v. Tex. E. Corp.
  869 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 6×·via Request For Injunction
  An injunction procured by material misrepresentation may not be sustained, and a district court cannot dissolve its own injunction once an appeal has been filed, except to maintain the status quo.
• Epic Metals Corp. v. H.H. Robertson Co.
  870 F.2d 1574· Fed. Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while Epic is not entirely barred from challenging patent validity, the new prior art presented is insufficient to overcome prior rulings and likely means the patent holder will prevail on the merits.
• United States v. Local 30
  871 F.2d 401· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 6×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the district court had the authority under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) to impose a broad decree against the Union to remedy RICO violations and that the terms of the decree were not an abuse of discretion.
• Benzel v. Grammer
  869 F.2d 1105· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prison's telephone policy, which restricted calls by inmates in administrative segregation to a pre-approved list of three persons, was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Ranbir S. Sahni
  868 F.2d 1096· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a district court erred in requiring a likelihood of asset dissipation for an asset freeze, when only a possibility is necessary if success on the merits is shown.
• Perez-Serrano v. DeLEON-Velez
  868 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 6×·via Permanent Injunction
  In a § 1983 action seeking both damages and injunctive relief, common issues of liability must first be submitted to a jury, and the district court erred by resolving liability itself.
• Gerhard Bass v. Attardi
  868 F.2d 45· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  Members of a New Jersey planning board and their agents are absolutely immune from section 1983 actions in their individual capacities; however, suits against them in their official capacities are treated as suits against the board itself, which has no immunity. The court could n
• Nassau Boulevard Shell Serv. Station, Inc. v. Shell OIL Co.
  869 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court granted the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and preliminary injunction, but cautioned against eleventh-hour motions for relief in franchise disputes.
• Blue Bell Bio-Medical v. Cin-Bad, Inc.
  864 F.2d 1253· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a former distributor's intent to copy a product is insufficient to establish trade dress infringement without a likelihood of consumer confusion, and that the district court did not err in finding no likelihood of confusion.
• Manifold v. Blunt
  863 F.2d 1368· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 6×·via Request For Injunction
  The state's early filing requirement for presidential electors of new political parties, which burdens political participation, is unconstitutional under strict scrutiny.
• H & W Indus., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.
  860 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-17 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a district court cannot dismiss claims on the merits following a preliminary injunction hearing without prior notice to the parties, and that Mississippi's UCC statute of frauds, not its general statute of frauds, governs contracts for the sale of goods.
• ANR Pipeline Co. v. The Corp. Comm'n OF the State OF Okla.
  860 F.2d 1571· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Oklahoma's ratable take statute and implementing regulation are preempted by federal law, and the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.
• Hudson Nat'l Bank v. Shapiro
  695 F. Supp. 544· S.D. Fla.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court granted a preliminary injunction against certain bank accounts believed to hold proceeds of a fraudulent credit card scheme, but denied it for another account where the plaintiff failed to establish a clear legal right.
• In re Powell
  851 F.2d 427· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining pro se appellants from filing claims without leave, as their filings did not rise to the level of abuse or harassment required for such an extreme remedy.
• Flowers Indus. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  849 F.2d 551· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Flowers failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the case was not ripe for judicial review because the FTC had not yet initiated enforcement proceedings.
• ENG v. Smith
  849 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 6×·via Prohibitory Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the provision of mental health services, finding a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• The Republic OF the Philippines v. NEW York Land Co.
  852 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a special property advisor and issuing an injunction against expenditures without court approval, as these measures were necessary to preserve the properties pending determination of ownership.
• Sebastian Int'l, Inc. v. Consumer Contacts (PTY) Ltd.
  847 F.2d 1093· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the first sale doctrine bars a copyright infringement claim for unauthorized importation of goods that the copyright owner manufactured and sold domestically.
• In re Establishment Inspection OF Skil Corp. Appeal of Skil Corp.
  846 F.2d 1127· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's order, characterized as an injunction, was appealable and that the Consumer Product Safety Commission was authorized to seek such an order to inspect Skil's records, even without explicit statutory authorization for search warrants.
• United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
  846 F.2d 43· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's remand order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• CBS Inc. v. Smith
  681 F. Supp. 794· S.D. Fla.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Florida Statute § 102.031(3)(a) impermissibly restricts the First Amendment rights of the media to gather and report information by prohibiting solicitation of opinions within 150 feet of polling places.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.
  843 F.2d 1119· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 6×·via Status Quo Injunction
  The court held that the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions require maintaining union dues check-off and security provisions as working conditions, even if contracts contain limitations, until statutory procedures are exhausted.
• Fla. Comm. for Liab. Reform v. McMillan
  682 F. Supp. 1536· M.D. Fla.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Florida Statute § 102.031(3) is unconstitutionally overbroad and granted a preliminary injunction against its enforcement.
• State OF Tex. v. United States
  837 F.2d 184· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that it lacked authority to enjoin state court proceedings because the state action did not threaten the federal court's jurisdiction over the administrative appeal.
• Haralson v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd.
  837 F.2d 1123· D.C. Cir.· 1988-01-22 ·cited 6×·via Request For Injunction
  The court held that appeals regarding interim attorney fees are interlocutory and thus dismissed, while affirming the denial of an injunction to prevent asset liquidation by a conservator.
• Forry, Inc. v. Neundorfer, Inc.
  837 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm.
• Pub. Serv. Co. OF NEW Hampshire v. Town OF W. Newbury
  835 F.2d 380· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the company failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm or success on the merits, and therefore the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.