Injunction

5,622 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 6,128 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp.
  953 F.2d 510· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 5×·via Modification Of Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a conditional fine and a bond, but modified the business ban and destruction order to ensure they were proper civil contempt sanctions allowing for purging of contempt and limited to infringing goods.
• Weaver v. Univ. OF Cincinnati
  942 F.2d 1039· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the agency shop fee collection scheme violated First Amendment rights under Hudson, and the issue was not moot despite subsequent renotification.
• Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCAIN Foods, Ltd.
  941 F.2d 970· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, as the district court did not clearly err in its findings regarding probable success on the merits, the geographic scope, or the duration of the injunction.
• Ime Archibong Etuk v. Slattery
  936 F.2d 1433· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-27 ·cited 5×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the district court's order regarding the adequacy of temporary documentation for LPRs was properly appealable as an injunction, and that the plaintiff class had standing and their claims were not moot.
• Rey v. Guy Gannett Publ'g Co.
  766 F. Supp. 1142· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• State OF Ala. v. The United States Env't Prot. Agency
  925 F.2d 385· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 5×·via Wrongful Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in discharging the State of Alabama from its obligation on the injunction bond, as the prior appellate decision did not moot the bond issue and the equitable factors cited were insufficient to justify discharge.
• Contemporary Rest. Concepts, Ltd. v. Las Tapas-Jacksonville, Inc.
  753 F. Supp. 1560· M.D. Fla.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 5×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the defendant's prior service mark was abandoned due to non-use, making the plaintiff's mark superior and likely to cause confusion, thus granting summary judgment for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• City OF Mount Clemens v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  917 F.2d 908· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for failing to exhaust administrative remedies, but correctly denied the preliminary injunction and limited discovery.
• Neva, Inc. v. Christian Duplications Int'l, Inc.
  743 F. Supp. 1533· M.D. Fla.· 1990-04-11 ·cited 5×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that Lanham Act remedies under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) apply to claims based on false or misleading representations of fact, not just infringement of registered marks. It also found that the implied terms of the contract showed intent for Scourby to retain copyright ow
• Dillon v. Combs
  895 F.2d 1175· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that there is no federal question jurisdiction because the Product Liability Risk Retention Act does not create a private right of action for states to enforce its provisions in federal court.
• Lyonel DOR v. Dist. Dir.
  891 F.2d 997· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the appellant's continued detention by the INS is legal and that the terms of the court's stay of deportation have been satisfied, allowing for the vacation of the stay.
• United States v. Medina
  718 F. Supp. 928· S.D. Fla.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the government need not demonstrate irreparable harm or balance hardships when seeking an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 401(a) to enforce the Communications Act.
• News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox
  702 F. Supp. 891· S.D. Fla.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 5×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that Florida Statute § 337.406, as written, is an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment rights because it is overbroad and not narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. The court also denied claims regarding the Sunshine Act and tort
• Joint Bd. OF Control OF the Flathead v. United States
  862 F.2d 195· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Joint Board failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by not participating in the BIA's comment period or administrative appeal process before filing suit.
• Chisom v. Buddy Roemer
  853 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-19 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction to enjoin a state judicial election should not have been granted because the potential disruption to the state's judicial system and the disenfranchisement of voters outweighed the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, and
• Jupiter Wreck, Inc. v. the Unidentified
  691 F. Supp. 1377· S.D. Fla.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the resolution of title to the res in federal court without state consent, thus a preliminary injunction cannot issue in the in rem action. The removed state law action must be remanded.
• Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp.
  847 F.2d 1398· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  Equitable defenses such as laches and estoppel are available to a party challenging the enforcement of an incontestable trademark registration.
• Div. NO. 1 v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  844 F.2d 1218· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-14 ·cited 5×·via Status Quo Injunction
  The dissenting judge would dismiss the union's appeal because the union lacks equitable standing to appeal an order it has refused to obey.
• Fundicao Tupy S.A. v. The United States & Cast Iron Pipe Fittings Comm.
  841 F.2d 1101· Fed. Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the trial court has since entered a final judgment on the merits.
• Digre v. Roseville Schs. Indep. Dist. NO. 623
  841 F.2d 245· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the school district did not violate the stay-put provision by placing Sean in special education, and the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for preliminary injunctive relief.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Textron, Inc.
  836 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-09 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring Textron to pay retiree health and life insurance premiums.
• Alvis Davis and Curtis Miners v. Lewis Friend as Chairman of the Save Our City Comm.
  507 So. 2d 796· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-05-27 ·cited 5×
  The appellants sought to enjoin a recall election against city officials after three of four grounds in the recall petition were ruled legally insufficient. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the injunction, holding that recall proceedings pr
• The City OF Treasure Island v. The Peoples Comm. for Common Sense Gov't
  505 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-04-22 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Peoples Committee lacked standing to seek an injunction against the City's spending of public funds for advertising.
• Kiwanis Int'l v. Ridgewood Kiwanis Club (D.C.Civil No. 85-4306)
  806 F.2d 468· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Kiwanis International may require its local chapter to comply with its discriminatory constitution and bylaws, as it is a "distinctly private" organization under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
• Feller v. Brock
  802 F.2d 722· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 5×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the West Virginia district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that conflicted with a prior, binding injunction from the District of Columbia, and that intervention as of right should have been granted.
• Dimitrios Avramidis v. Arco Petroleum Prods. Co.
  798 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-12 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that dissolving a preliminary injunction did not require a new 180-day notice period for franchise termination, as the original notice was sufficient and the dealers' actions caused the delay.
• Loveridge v. Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc.
  788 F.2d 914· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the appellee failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any potential financial losses were compensable by money damages.
• Polovchak v. Meese
  774 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Government violated the Polovchaks' due process rights by failing to notify them of the departure control order and grant a hearing. However, the judge dissents on the district court's injunction, arguing it was a necessary remedy.
• Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macy & Co., Inc.
  762 F.2d 7· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A significant delay in seeking preliminary injunctive relief can neutralize the presumption of irreparable harm required for such relief, even if the delay does not constitute laches.
• THE Florida BAR v. Strickland
  468 So. 2d 983· Fla.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 5×·via Permanent Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court approved a stipulated order permanently enjoining Strickland from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, specifically prohibiting him from counseling on domestic relations, preparing related legal documents, and appearing in court on behalf of par
• THE Florida BAR v. Mickens
  465 So. 2d 524· Fla.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 5×
  The court approved the stipulation for settlement and the referee's report, permanently enjoining the respondent from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
• Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  606 F. Supp. 132· S.D. Fla.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court granted the motion to establish an escrow fund for royalty payments and a preliminary injunction against termination of the license agreement.
• Schafer v. The City OF NEW Orleans
  743 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a temporary moratorium on building permits for fast-food restaurants, enacted to allow for a land-use study, did not violate due process or equal protection and was not subject to the same notice requirements as permanent zoning changes.
• Layne & Brill, P.A. v. Brill
  453 So. 2d 890· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-08-07 ·cited 5×
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Ormont Drug & Chem. Co., Inc.
  739 F.2d 654· D.C. Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 5×·via Injunctive Order
  The court held that a contempt order should not issue if the party demonstrates an inability to comply with the court's order, and the district court erred by failing to properly consider Ormont's claim of impossibility.
• Nartowicz v. Clayton Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  736 F.2d 646· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the school district's practices of permitting a religious student group to meet on school premises and announcing church-sponsored activities, as these practices likel
• Swensen v. Lofton
  457 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-07-06 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. The appellate court reversed the injunction order, holding that the appellees' application failed to allege sufficient facts to establish irreparable harm as required for equitable relief, and that the
• BAM Historic Dist. Ass'n v. Koch
  723 F.2d 233· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction and the dismissal of the due process claim, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Jones v. Gray & Sons
  430 So. 2d 8· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-04-26 ·cited 5×
  This case addresses the constitutionality of a Dade County ordinance requiring a fifteen-day holding period for secondhand dealers before reselling items containing precious metals. The appellate court upheld the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power and found that any bu
• Brown v. Am. Petrofina Mktg., Inc.
  555 F. Supp. 1327· M.D. Fla.· 1983-02-03 ·cited 5×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to permanent injunctive relief under the PMPA against Fina, Huntley-Jiffy, or Sun States, and denied relief against Clay as well, finding Clay's nonrenewal of franchises was permissible.
• Bill's Coal Co., Inc. v. Bd. OF Pub. Utils. OF Springfield
  682 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that urging an interpretation of a contract's termination clause, even in bad faith, does not constitute a breach or repudiation of the contract if it does not affect either party's performance.
• City OF Hallandale v. Prospect Hall Coll., Inc.
  414 So. 2d 239· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-05-05 ·cited 5×
  The City of Hallandale appealed a judgment denying its request for an injunction against an alleged zoning violation at a facility leased by Prospect Hall College and granting the College's counterclaim for mandamus ordering the City to issue a motel license. The court affirmed,
• Hooks v. Wainwright
  536 F. Supp. 1330· M.D. Fla.· 1982-04-14 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the state's proposed law library system alone is insufficient to guarantee indigent inmates meaningful access to the courts, and that some form of attorney assistance is constitutionally required.
• Strader v. Oakley
  410 So. 2d 954· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-02-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court correctly interpreted the restrictive covenant to prohibit duplexes and correctly denied attorney's fees as there was no express contractual basis for their award.
• THE Florida BAR v. Mills
  398 So. 2d 1368· Fla.· 1981-05-28 ·cited 5×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a referee's findings that Joe Mills, Jr., a nonlawyer, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by drafting articles of incorporation for a client. The Court enjoined Mills from forming corporations and related work, found him guilty of indir
• United States v. Generix Drug Corp.
  498 F. Supp. 288· S.D. Fla.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the government is entitled to an injunction against the distribution of generic drugs if it demonstrates a reasonable possibility that differences in excipients between the generic and pioneer drug affect the generic drug's safety and effectiveness.
• OKC Corp. v. Williams
  614 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the partial summary judgment for the SEC was not erroneously entered because there were no genuine issues of disputed fact concerning SEC participation in the alleged private party taking of the report.
• J.B.K., Inc. v. Caron
  600 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-14 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Missouri's prostitution statute was not an abuse of discretion.
• Colonial Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  592 F.2d 1126· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-05 ·cited 5×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  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
• Ohio Contractors Ass'n v. The Econ. Dev. Admin.
  580 F.2d 213· 6th Cir.· 1978-07-07 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.