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

• Outboard Marine Corp. v. Thomas
  773 F.2d 883· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the EPA lacked statutory authority under CERCLA to obtain an administrative warrant for preliminary design and surveying activities on private property when no emergency existed.
• Glasstech, Inc. v. AB Kyro OY
  769 F.2d 1574· Fed. Cir.· 1985-08-06 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the transfer of a case for multidistrict litigation proceedings divests the transferor court of jurisdiction, rendering its subsequent orders void and precluding appellate review.
• Ebel v. City OF Corona
  767 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 6×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the City of Corona's adult-use zoning ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to Helen Ebel's bookstore because it did not provide adequate alternative locations and the amortization period was unreasonable given her investment and lease.
• Carmela Marengo & Marengo Interiors, Inc. v. Prop. Mgmt. Inc. OF S. Fla.
  472 So. 2d 1388· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-31 ·cited 6×·via Injunction Scope
  Marengo appeals a temporary injunction granted to enforce a non-competition agreement. The court held that the injunction was overly broad and exceeded the scope of the parties' actual contractual agreement, requiring remand for a more limited injunction.
• Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. E.T. Legg & Co.
  472 So. 2d 1336· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-24 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Department of Transportation appeals a trial court decision that found it lacked jurisdiction over advertising signs within city limits and had selectively enforced its regulations against E.T. Legg & Company. The appellate court reversed on jurisdiction but affirmed
• Prohosky v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  767 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 6×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a permanent injunction against spraying water through endguns, as there was no evidence that this action caused harm to the plaintiffs under Indiana law.
• Rollins Protective Servs. Co., Inc. v. Jeanine Lyn Lammons and Daniel L. Sloan
  472 So. 2d 812· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-07-05 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a trial court cannot refuse to enforce a reasonable non-competition clause in an employment contract based on a finding that enforcement would be unduly harsh or oppressive.
• The Grand Union Co. v. Cord Meyer Dev. Co. & King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.
  761 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly interpreted the contract provision and granted appropriate injunctive relief, but erred in awarding attorneys' fees.
• Captain Dale M. Hartikka v. United States
  754 F.2d 1516· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The dissenting judge believes the district court should be affirmed because the plaintiff has shown genuinely extraordinary irreparable injury due to the stigma of a general discharge, distinguishing it from ordinary employment termination cases.
• Selchow & Righter Co. v. Goldex Corp.
  612 F. Supp. 19· S.D. Fla.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 6×·via Permanent Injunction
  The exclusive licensee of U.S. trademark rights can prevent the importation and sale of identical goods originating from the foreign licensor by a third party.
• Humphreys v. Donovan
  755 F.2d 1211· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 6×
  Attorneys acting as 'persuaders' under the LMRDA are required to file disclosure reports, and these requirements do not unconstitutionally infringe on their First Amendment rights or violate the attorney-client privilege.
• Everglades Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Buckner
  462 So. 2d 835· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-12-28 ·cited 6×
  An amendment to a condominium declaration barring children under 16 is valid and applies to an owner who acquired a stepchild after the amendment, even if the owner had no children at the time of the amendment.
• Turlington v. Dep't OF Admin.
  462 So. 2d 65· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-12-28 ·cited 6×
  Taxpayer Turlington challenged the constitutionality of a Florida statute allowing elected public officials to retire while continuing employment and receive retirement benefits alongside salary, arguing it violated Article X, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution's requirement
• Liptak v. The United States
  748 F.2d 1254· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 6×·via Action For Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly referring the case to a special master without exceptional circumstances or consent, and that a transcript was necessary to review credibility findings.
• United States v. Ward V. Nolder
  749 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Nolder's motion to vacate the judgment, as Nolder was a member of the Coleman class protected by an injunction.
• United States v. Diapulse Corp. OF Am.
  748 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 6×·via Modification Of Injunction
  The court held that the FDA's inconsistent treatment of similar devices warranted modification of a prior injunction, allowing DCA to market a modified Diapulse machine (P/emf) similarly to how a competitor's machine (Magnatherm) was marketed, but affirmed the prohibition on mark
• Gaylord Broad. Co. v. Cosmos Broad. Corp.
  746 F.2d 251· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a claim for injunctive relief to enforce a one-year non-compete clause is moot once the one-year period has expired, leaving only a claim for damages.
• Keishian v. Buckley
  752 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-16 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not err in preliminarily enjoining the appellant from challenging in state court the appellee's levy upon the appellant's automobile.
• Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist. v. Sec'y OF Dep't OF Interior
  742 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 6×·via Suit For Injunction
  The court held that TCID's claim of a property right in water was unfounded, and the Secretary properly terminated its contract for violating operating criteria, without violating due process.
• Fornes v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist.
  455 So. 2d 584· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-09-05 ·cited 6×
  This case addresses whether a taxpayer has standing to sue a taxing district to prevent illegal expenditure of public funds that would increase their tax burden. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that a taxpayer does have standing in such circumstances.
• Virzi Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru OF NEW England, Inc.
  742 F.2d 677· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-30 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A franchisee is considered 'successful' for attorney's fees under the Connecticut franchise statute if their lawsuit provides a practical benefit, such as obtaining injunctive relief to continue operations, even if the substantive claims are later dismissed as moot.
• Tyler v. Black
  744 F.2d 610· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or rely on an erroneous legal premise in denying the inmates' motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
• The Sansom Comm. v. Lynn
  735 F.2d 1552· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
• Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City Council OF Baltimore
  733 F.2d 484· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the City of Baltimore's motion to stay the injunction preventing its eminent domain action but denied its request to enjoin the Colts from preparing to play in Indianapolis.
• Crawford v. Janklow
  733 F.2d 541· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had equitable jurisdiction to consider the merits of the State's revised plan for distributing federal funds under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act.
• THE Florida BAR v. Furman
  451 So. 2d 808· Fla.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court held Rosemary Furman in contempt for continuing to practice law without a license in violation of a prior injunction, despite her arguments that she was denied a jury trial and that the injunction was unclear. The Court sentenced her to 120 days' impriso
• City OF Winter Park v. Montesi
  448 So. 2d 1242· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The City of Winter Park appeals a permanent injunction preventing it from selling sinkhole photographs. The appellate court reversed, holding that the city's sale of photographs of a natural phenomenon served a valid municipal purpose under Florida's broad home rule powers and di
• Sadowsky v. City OF NEW York
  732 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims regarding the recordation requirement of the SRO renovation law.
• Story v. Marsh
  732 F.2d 1375· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Army Corps of Engineers' decision to artificially crevasse the frontline levee is an action committed to agency discretion and therefore unreviewable, and that the district court erred in granting an injunction and in its rulings on condemnation cases.
• Pollgreen v. Morris
  579 F. Supp. 711· S.D. Fla.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs established a viable defense of duress and coercion, entitling them to summary judgment and mitigation of fines under 8 U.S.C. § 1323.
• Smith v. Snow
  722 F.2d 630· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 6×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  The court held that the Georgia Parole Board's unfettered discretion in clemency proceedings means no constitutional right to procedural due process or Eighth Amendment protection against arbitrary application of the death penalty at this stage.
• United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc.
  722 F.2d 1073· 2d Cir.· 1983-11-30 ·cited 6×·via Scope Of Injunctions
  The court held that the modified order allowing the use of information derived from a confidential presentence report was inconsistent with its prior directive, and that the prohibition on use must extend to derivative information.
• City OF Hallandale v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc.
  440 So. 2d 1328· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-11-30 ·cited 6×
  The City of Hallandale appealed a dismissal of its complaint seeking declaratory relief and injunction challenging a state statute exempting parimutuel permit holders from local building and zoning regulations. The court reversed, holding that the city was entitled to proceed wit
• Dep't OF Revenue v. Ford
  438 So. 2d 798· Fla.· 1983-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether section 193.481, requiring separate assessment of subsurface mineral rights, was unconstitutionally applied to taxpayers in Volusia County. The Court held that the statute is constitutional and was properly applied, rejecting taxpayers'
• Gulf Coast Indus. Workers' Union v. Exxon Co.
  712 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A federal court may not issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration of a labor dispute unless the arbitration process itself would be rendered a hollow formality by the challenged self-help measure.
• Ass'n Against Discrimination IN Emp., Inc. v. City OF Bridgeport
  710 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had the power to modify its prior injunction to adapt remedies to changed circumstances, and that the modification was justified and consistent with prior rulings.
• Williams v. Pierce
  708 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that HUD's failure to provide the required public comment period before issuing its rent increase regulations violated its own rules, which have the force of law.
• Burnstein v. 5838 Condo., Inc.
  430 So. 2d 572· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-05-03 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A condominium association that obtained a preliminary injunction for noise abatement was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees because the preliminary injunction was interlocutory and the case remained pending on the merits.
• Midshipman First Class Robert O. Wimmer v. The Honorable John F. Lehman, Jr.
  705 F.2d 1402· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-28 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Naval Academy's procedures did not violate due process and that the Secretary had statutory authority to order the midshipman to active duty. The court reversed the preliminary injunction.
• S & S Mach. Co. v. Masinexportimport
  706 F.2d 411· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 6×
  Entities qualifying as agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state under FSIA are immune from prejudgment attachment unless immunity is explicitly waived, and a general waiver of 'other liability' in a trade agreement does not constitute an explicit waiver of prejudgment att
• Universal City Studios, Inc. v. N.Y. Broadway Int'l Corp.
  705 F.2d 94· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that criminal contempt punishments were improperly imposed because the proceedings were initiated and conducted as civil contempt proceedings without proper notice.
• Craig v. McDONOUGH
  704 F.2d 780· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the legal issues were inextricably intertwined with unresolved factual disputes, making it impossible to assess the likelihood of success on the merits at this prelimin
• Bd. OF Trade of the City OF Chicago v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
  704 F.2d 929· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 6×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the Board of Trade's challenge to the Commission's arbitration rule was not ripe for adjudication, as neither the Board nor its members were suffering immediate harm and a specific factual context was necessary to determine the constitutional claims.
• Ponke v. A.A. Boca, Inc.
  429 So. 2d 415· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-03-30 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  Two appellants challenged contempt orders for violating a temporary injunction in a non-competition dispute involving a taxi business. The court reversed the contempt finding as to Ponke due to lack of jurisdiction and service of process, but affirmed the contempt finding as to P
• Baker v. Bray
  701 F.2d 119· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the appeal concerning the dismissal of third-party claims was unappealable due to failure to meet Rule 54(b) requirements and lack of finality, and the appeal concerning the preliminary injunction was moot.
• State OF NEW York v. Dairylea Coop. Inc.
  698 F.2d 567· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 6×
  A district court's disapproval of a proposed settlement agreement in an antitrust case is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it has the practical effect of denying an injunction and would cause serious, irreparable harm.
• Aurora Pump v. Goulds Pumps, Inc.
  424 So. 2d 70· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-12-14 ·cited 6×
  Aurora Pump appeals a permanent injunction preventing Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) from awarding a contract to Aurora and requiring JEA to reissue bids with clear, published procedures. The court affirmed, holding that JEA's bidding documents were ambiguous regarding dea
• United States Aluminum Corp. v. Kawneer Co., Inc.
  694 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-07 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion and that the transfer of a declaratory judgment action to another district was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• Blinder v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  692 F.2d 102· 10th Cir.· 1982-10-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Blinder's action as moot because the challenged SEC order remained outstanding and the claims were capable of repetition.
• In re Bristol Indus. Corp. v. Bristol Indus. Corp.
  690 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The bankruptcy court erred by treating a motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion without notice and by misapplying legal principles regarding bailments and sales of fungible goods.