Injunction

5,622 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 6,125 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Roger J. AU & SON, Inc.
  354 So. 2d 446· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-01-26 ·cited 49×
  Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company and Jacksonville Electric Authority appealed trial court judgments that enjoined JEA from awarding a thermal discharge unit construction contract to Wood-Hopkins and mandated award to the lowest bidder, Roger J. Au & Son, Inc. The appellate court
• Evans v. Buchanan
  555 F.2d 373· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 49×·via Permanent Injunction
  The dissenting opinion argues that the majority's order is unclear and that the case should be remanded to resolve critical issues regarding interdistrict violations and their effects.
• Davis v. Sails
  318 So. 2d 214· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-08-06 ·cited 49×
  The Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County appealed a trial court judgment ordering the rezoning of a 37.5-acre parcel from agricultural to a more liberal classification. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the county's refusal to rezone was arbitra
• Brown v. Dixie Herlong Chastain
  416 F.2d 1012· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 49×
  The district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 to hear claims alleging deprivation of constitutional rights by state judicial officers. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not preclude this jurisdicti
• Duval Eng'g & Contracting Co. v. Louis M. Sales & Susan G. Sales
  77 So. 2d 431· Fla.· 1954-12-03 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that riparian property owners who failed to comply with statutory conditions to acquire fee simple title to submerged lands could not recover compensation when the state subsequently exercised authority over those lands to construct a bridge. The Co
• Clara Lavinia Wright (also Known as Vinnie Wright) v. Hattie Dean Blocker
  144 Fla. 428· Fla.· 1940-10-11 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that statutes of limitation do not apply to forged deeds, even when recorded for over twenty years. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' bill for injunction attacking a deed allegedly forged in 1911, finding that recording l
• Sol Brash v. State Tuberculosis Bd.
  124 Fla. 652· Fla.· 1936-06-13 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of an injunction against the State Tuberculosis Board's plan to issue revenue certificates to finance a tuberculosis sanatorium through a federal loan. The Court held that revenue certificates payable solely from sanatorium revenues,
• Sauls v. Freeman
  24 Fla. 209· Fla.· 1888-06-01 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a bill seeking to enjoin county commissioners from moving county records, holding that a judge who signed a petition for a county seat relocation was not disqualified from presiding over mandamus proceedings, and that a prior ma
• Knox v. Spratt
  23 Fla. 64· Fla.· 1887-01-01 ·cited 49×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision that overruled a demurrer to an amended bill of complaint. The court held that a purchaser who had notice of the vendor's limited interest in the property at the time of sale cannot compel specific performance of the con
• Dollar Rent A CAR OF Wash., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  774 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction and in holding Travelers in civil contempt because Dollar and Viking failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the contempt order was based on i
• Posada v. Lamb Cnty.
  716 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 48×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the district court's factual finding that the plaintiffs did not prove their claim was not clearly erroneous, and thus should be deferred to.
• Mobil Corp. v. Marathon OIL Co.
  669 F.2d 366· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-23 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Mobil's Williams Act claim is moot because the antitrust case ruling makes it legally impossible for Mobil to make a tender offer, which is a prerequisite for asserting such a claim.
• The Cont'l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  614 F.2d 351· 3d Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the risk of inadvertent disclosure alone is insufficient to justify a preliminary injunction against employment, and that the non-competition covenant did not cover Grovijohn's role as a plant manager in manufacturing bottles.
• Jones v. Alexander
  609 F.2d 778· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-10 ·cited 48×·via Action For Injunction
  The court held that the Secretary of the Army properly remedied the defect in the 1975 promotion selection board by convening a relook board, and that the plaintiff's nonselection by these boards constituted the necessary two pass overs for release from active duty.
• Oldham v. Rooks
  361 So. 2d 140· Fla.· 1978-07-20 ·cited 48×
  A county commissioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 839.07, Florida Statutes, which prohibited public officers from being interested in public works contracts they participated in awarding. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's invalidation of the sta
• Brunswick Corp. & Sherwood Med. Indus., Inc. v. Sheridan
  582 F.2d 175· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the dismissal of the antitrust counterclaim for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), and therefore, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
• Wadsworth v. Whaland
  562 F.2d 70· 1st Cir.· 1977-09-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that ERISA does not preempt New Hampshire's law requiring coverage for mental illnesses in group health insurance policies purchased by employee benefit plans, as the state law regulates insurance, not the plans themselves.
• Lever Bros. Co. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union
  554 F.2d 115· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-30 ·cited 48×·via Boys Markets Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the dispute was arbitrable, the preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending arbitration was properly issued, and the injunction bond was correctly conditioned on the wrongful issuance of the injunction r
• Stateside Mach. Co., Ltd. v. Alperin
  526 F.2d 480· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The denial of a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not cause irreparable harm, and a stay of a hybrid legal/equitable action is also not appealable.
• Wallace v. Lynn
  507 F.2d 1186· D.C. Cir.· 1974-12-04 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that federal employees must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief for employment disputes, even when constitutional claims are raised.
• Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of Am.
  466 F.2d 424· D.C. Cir.· 1972-08-03 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in denying attorney's fees, as the lawsuits conferred substantial benefits on the union and its members, and federal courts possess inherent equitable power to award fees in such circumstances.
• Beefy King Int'l, Inc. v. Veigle
  464 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-27 ·cited 48×
  The court held that an order releasing real property from a lis pendens is appealable and was properly discharged because the underlying suit did not directly affect the property.
• The W. Va. Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co.
  441 F.2d 232· 4th Cir.· 1971-04-06 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Conservancy has standing to sue and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Sierra Club v. Hickel
  433 F.2d 24· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the granting of a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion and must be reversed, despite the plaintiff having standing.
• Schildhaus v. MOE
  335 F.2d 529· 2d Cir.· 1964-07-07 ·cited 48×
  A motion to vacate an injunction under F.R.Civ.Proc. 60(b)(5) requires changed circumstances, not a relitigation of issues already decided. A motion under 60(b)(1) for judicial mistake must be made within a reasonable time, generally not exceeding the appeal period.
• Cliett v. Hammonds
  305 F.2d 565· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-28 ·cited 48×
  The court held that while the judgment improperly mixed civil and criminal contempt procedures, the finding of civil contempt was valid and the judgment should be modified to remove the criminal aspects.
• Arvil R. Hardcastle v. Western Greyhound Lines (Division OF THE Greyhound Corporation)
  303 F.2d 182· 9th Cir.· 1962-05-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a union's change in seniority rights, absent allegations of bad faith or hostile discrimination, is permissible even if it disadvantages some members.
• Belk's Dep't Store v. Scherman
  117 So. 2d 845· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-02-15 ·cited 48×
  A department store lessee obtained injunctions and a receiver appointment against the store owner without proper notice or bonds. The store owner appealed the denial of a motion to dissolve those orders. The appellate court held that while the underlying orders could stand, the c
• Joshua Meier Co., Inc. v. Albany Novelty Mfg. Co.
  236 F.2d 144· 2d Cir.· 1956-07-30 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement due to strong evidence of copying, but not for trademark infringement or unfair competition claims where substantial doubt existed.
• The Cold Metal Process Co. & The Union Nat'l Bank of Youngstown v. Republic Steel Corp.
  233 F.2d 828· 6th Cir.· 1956-04-10 ·cited 48×
  The court denied petitions for rehearing, adhering to its prior decision regarding patent license agreements and immunity.
• Mora v. Mejias
  206 F.2d 377· 1st Cir.· 1953-07-24 ·cited 48×·via Interlocutory Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction because the plaintiff had not shown with reasonable certainty that he would ultimately prevail.
• Stroud v. Swope
  187 F.2d 850· 9th Cir.· 1951-03-09 ·cited 48×·via Petition For Injunction
• Hanna v. Martin
  49 So. 2d 585· Fla.· 1950-12-19 ·cited 48×·via Injunction Enforcement
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a damages award stemming from a property owner's failure to comply with a previous injunction. The court held that the damages awarded were excessive because they included the cost of constructing a bulkhead, which was not a direct or necessary
• Crosley Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co.
  130 F.2d 474· 3d Cir.· 1942-07-31 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court, having first obtained jurisdiction of the parties and issues in a declaratory judgment action, should have enjoined prosecution of later-filed infringement suits in another district.
• The Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Pinellas Cnty. v. Herrick
  123 Fla. 619· Fla.· 1936-01-01 ·cited 48×·via Suit For Injunction
  Pinellas County taxpayer Herrick challenged the Board of County Commissioners' resolution authorizing $179,000 in water revenue certificates as unconstitutional bonds requiring voter approval. The Florida Supreme Court held the revenue certificates are self-liquidating debentures
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. the State of Fla. by Fla. R.R. Comm'rs
  77 Fla. 571· Fla.· 1919-05-05 ·cited 48×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Railroad Commissioners' authority to bring an equity suit compelling the Florida East Coast Railway Company to discover and refund overcharges collected in violation of a rate regulation. The court rejected the railroad's constitutional challe
• Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  949 So. 2d 1066· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-01-05 ·cited 47×
  Homeowners appealed the denial of a mandatory injunction seeking to force Tampa Electric Company to remove large electrical transmission poles from their neighborhood. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that even if the poles constituted a nuisance, monetary damages
• Gustafson v. Mauck
  743 So. 2d 614· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-10-20 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the telephone calls, in conjunction with the history of the relationship, did not provide objectively reasonable grounds to fear imminent danger of violence.
• Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  860 F.2d 1022· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-28 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the appeal was not moot because the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception applied, allowing review of the "temporary restraining order" despite the appellant's compliance.
• United States v. Thier
  801 F.2d 1463· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-10 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court should require the district court to allow defendants access to funds for defense and living expenses unless the government shows a compelling reason.
• N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Carbon Cnty. Coal Co.
  799 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance, and the contract was not rendered unenforceable by a potential violation of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act.
• Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc.
  797 F.2d 1222· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the structure and organization of a computer program are protectible by copyright, not just the literal code, and that substantial similarity in structure can constitute infringement.
• Conair Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  721 F.2d 1355· D.C. Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 47×
  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the statutory authority to issue a bargaining order even in the absence of a demonstrated majority of employee support for a union, provided that the employer has engaged in "outrageous" and "pervasive" unfair labor practices that pre
• Omega Satellite Prods. Co. v. City OF Indianapolis
  694 F.2d 119· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-23 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient probability of prevailing on its Sherman Act claim to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• Prof'l Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  685 F.2d 547· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-11 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the revocation of PATCO's exclusive recognition status was an appropriate disciplinary action for its unlawful strike.
• Fernandez-Roque v. Smith
  671 F.2d 426· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
• Harlequin Enters. Ltd. v. Gulf & W. Corp.
  644 F.2d 946· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the defendant's "Silhouette Romance" cover design infringed upon the plaintiff's "Harlequin Presents" cover design under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act due to substantial similarity and secondary meaning, and that laches did
• Marcera v. Chinlund
  595 F.2d 1231· 2d Cir.· 1979-02-27 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The dissenting judge argues that the court should not mandate a statewide 'contact' visitation program for jails without clearly defining the constitutional right involved and considering the significant costs and administrative burdens.
• Merrell-National Labs., Inc. v. Zenith Labs., Inc.
  579 F.2d 786· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-13 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the appeal from the original preliminary injunction was untimely, but the denial of the motion for redetermination of that injunction was appealable. The court affirmed the denial of the redetermination motion, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Taylor Wine Co., Inc. v. Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc.
  569 F.2d 731· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-03 ·cited 47×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while an injunction was necessary to prevent confusion, the district court's order was too broad by prohibiting all use of the surname 'Taylor'.