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

• NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. THE Council OF the City OF NEW Orleans
  850 F.2d 1069· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the utility's claims, affirming the principle that federal courts should defer to state regulatory processes in complex utility rate matters.
• Conecuh-Monroe Cmty. Action Agency v. Bowen
  852 F.2d 581· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the transfer of a county from one Community Action Agency (CAA) to another, where the county was not initially served by a federally funded CAA, does not constitute a 'termination' triggering the requirement for direct federal funding.
• Fleet Aerospace Corp. v. Holderman
  848 F.2d 720· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court should find the Ohio Act preempted by the Williams Act and in violation of the Commerce Clause.
• Half Moon BAY Fishermans' Mktg. Ass'n v. Carlucci
  847 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, as the defendants had minimally complied with NEPA and MPRSA requirements for the initial dredging phase.
• United States v. BNS Inc.
  848 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The appellate court held that the district court had authority to issue a preliminary injunction under the All Writs Act to preserve its jurisdiction under the APPA, and modified the injunction by appointing an independent trustee.
• In re China Peak Resort v. Sierra Summit, Inc.
  847 F.2d 570· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-25 ·cited 4×·via Injunction Enforcement
  The Ninth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enforce its prior injunction and should not have abstained from ruling on the Board's attempt to collect use tax on rentals of assets purchased from a bankruptcy estate.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Alton E. Jones
  846 F.2d 221· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-05 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court's failure to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law for its rulings on preliminary injunctions constituted reversible error, requiring remand.
• Hitachi Zosen Clearing, Inc. v. Tek-Matik, Inc.
  846 F.2d 27· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  An order requiring the posting of security as a condition to granting a preliminary injunction is not an immediately appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) nor under the collateral order doctrine.
• Merrill Lynch v. Dutton
  844 F.2d 726· 10th Cir.· 1988-04-13 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A preliminary injunction preserving the status quo until an arbitration panel takes jurisdiction does not violate the Federal Arbitration Act, but an open-ended injunction is improper.
• Paris v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  843 F.2d 561· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction, as the legislative intent underlying public housing provisions forbids skipping over families because they are too poor.
• In re Shearn Moody, Jr. v. Shearn Moody, Jr.
  837 F.2d 719· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to order a trustee to provide advance notice of spendthrift trust distributions to a bankruptcy trustee, even though the distributions themselves were not property of the bankruptcy estate.
• Quinn v. The State OF Mo.
  839 F.2d 425· 8th Cir.· 1988-02-11 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary restraining order exceeding ten days, with the practical effect of a preliminary injunction, is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and affirmed the TRO as modified.
• Dederich Corp. v. Eurozyme S.N.C.
  839 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-02 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard to determine if a dealership existed under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law.
• Sharp Corp. v. The United States
  837 F.2d 1058· Fed. Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the lower court erred in granting preliminary injunctions because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury from complying with administrative review directives.
• Perkins v. Anderson
  518 So. 2d 1354· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-01-14 ·cited 4×·via Mandatory Injunction
  Property owners appealed the denial of their cross- and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment to quiet title, establish a way of necessity, and obtain an injunction against water flooding from an adjacent lake. The appellate court reversed on the statutory way of necessity c
• The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Oberly
  837 F.2d 108· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  Delaware's noise control statute and regulations are not facially preempted by the federal Noise Control Act because the federal law only preempts state standards when identical federal regulations exist, and EPA has not issued such regulations for refrigerator cars or property l
• Derks v. Dugger
  835 F.2d 778· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the appellant's premature notice of appeal was effective due to unique circumstances where the district court misled him into believing it was valid.
• Joint Bd. OF Control OF the Flathead v. United States
  832 F.2d 1127· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because it failed to consider the potentially superior priority of the Tribes' fishing rights, which predated irrigation rights.
• Newmont Mining Corp. v. Pickens
  831 F.2d 1448· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-06 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the tender offer's disclosure of financing was insufficient under the Williams Act and SEC regulations, as it failed to provide specific details about borrowed funds.
• Bertrand v. Jorden
  672 F. Supp. 1417· M.D. Fla.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 4×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the defendant farm labor contractor violated the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act (FLCRA) by failing to provide required disclosures, maintain proper records, and submit accurate information to growers, warranting statutory damages for each violation.
• Baker's AID v. Hussmann Foodservice Co. & Hussmann Corp.
  830 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-01 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to make a sufficient showing of irreparable harm, despite a likelihood of success on the merits.
• H & S Plumbing Supplies, Inc. v. Bancamerica Commercial Corp.
  830 F.2d 4· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the order denying reargument of a motion to vacate a notice of pendency is not appealable as a collateral order or a preliminary injunction.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Aurora Equip. Co.
  830 F.2d 753· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an order remanding a case to an arbitrator for further proceedings, clarification, or determination of monetary relief is not a final order and thus not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Confederated Tribes AND Bands OF the Yakima Indian Nation v. Whiteside
  828 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The Yakima Nation has the inherent authority to zone non-Indian fee land within its reservation, and this authority can preclude county zoning when tribal interests outweigh county interests, particularly in the closed area.
• Conservatory-City OF Refuge, Inc. v. Kinney
  514 So. 2d 377· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-09-04 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in applying the Marketable Record Title Act and that the appellant's argument regarding void conveyances was premature. The temporary injunction was affirmed for most of the property but quashed as to the 'house area'.
• United States v. Torres
  826 F.2d 151· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Clean Water Act applies in Puerto Rico and that the appellant failed to preserve his constitutional takings claim.
• Sommer v. Sommer
  508 So. 2d 773· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-06-18 ·cited 4×
  Robert Sommer appeals from a Florida court's injunction that temporarily prevented him from removing his four-year-old son from Florida, contrary to a Michigan custody decree. The court affirmed the temporary injunction as an emergency measure but quashed provisions that altered
• Christos N. Kritikos & E. Shipping Co. v. Palmer Johnson, Inc.
  821 F.2d 418· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-09 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while the trial court improperly relied on settlement letters to find the plaintiff responsible for delays, other evidence supported that finding, but the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's warranty claim after the defendant sought contract enforceme
• Garland Greger and Bonnie Greger v. Int'l Jensen
  820 F.2d 937· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that under Missouri law, damages for a temporary nuisance are limited to the time of the filing of the suit, not the time of trial, unless an injunction is also sought. The court also found that the district court's submission of punitive damages to the jury was an
• Elsinore Shore Assocs. v. Local 54
  820 F.2d 62· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 4×·via Boys Markets Injunction
  The court held that a Boys Markets injunction against a strike is improper when the underlying dispute is a non-arbitrable wage negotiation failure, not a contract interpretation issue.
• Marshall v. Gore
  506 So. 2d 91· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-05-01 ·cited 4×
  Marvin Marshall appeals a trial court injunction enforcing a non-compete agreement that prohibited him from engaging in any computer software business. The appellate court affirms the injunction as a reasonable restraint of trade but reverses and narrows its scope to restrict onl
• Crook v. Deane Baker
  813 F.2d 88· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The Regents of the University of Michigan had the authority under Michigan law to revoke a degree obtained by fraud, and the procedures followed comported with due process requirements.
• DOE v. U.S. Air Force
  812 F.2d 738· D.C. Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the retention of information obtained through allegedly unconstitutional searches and seizures prevents the eradication of the violation's effects, and a declaratory judgment for expungement may be appropriate relief.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Am. Nat'l Cellular, Inc.
  810 F.2d 1511· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission's enforcement authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act is constitutional, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Est. OF Clark M. Young & Martha E. Carter Young v. Williams
  810 F.2d 363· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 4×·via Claim For Injunction
  The court held that the estate's damage claim was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same facts as a prior injunction action.
• Sylvan Zemel v. Wilkinson
  501 So. 2d 694· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-01-28 ·cited 4×
  Landowners appealed the denial of agricultural classification for 130 parcels in Lee County, Florida. The trial court upheld the property appraiser's denial, finding insufficient evidence of a bona fide forestry operation. The appellate court affirmed, applying the deferential st
• City of New Haven v. United States
  809 F.2d 900· D.C. Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 4×·via Request For Injunction
  The unconstitutional legislative veto provision in section 1013 of the Impoundment Control Act is inseverable from the remainder of the section, rendering the entire section void.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Blain
  808 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that consent decrees are binding and cannot be unilaterally revoked, and that the appellants violated the terms of the injunction by improperly using trust funds.
• Nat'l Revenue Corp. v. Violet
  807 F.2d 285· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding the Rhode Island statute does not unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.
• Dean v. Coughlin
  804 F.2d 207· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing its own detailed plan for prison dental care without sufficient deference to the state's proposed plan.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. PPG Indus., Inc.
  798 F.2d 1500· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction, rather than a hold separate order, is warranted when the FTC demonstrates a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a Clayton Act Section 7 claim, and the equities do not strongly favor the transaction.
• In re Wickline
  796 F.2d 1055· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 4×
  A jury trial is not warranted because the plaintiff seeks only punitive damages, which are unavailable without a claim for compensatory damages under Missouri law.
• Wilson v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs. Appeal of Margaret M. Heckler
  796 F.2d 36· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the Secretary's use of certain severity regulations, but vacated a portion of the injunction for overbreadth.
• Guar. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd.
  794 F.2d 1339· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 4×·via Request For Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing Guaranty's action to remove a receiver appointed by the FHLBB, affirming the judgment.
• Am. Trading Transp. Co., Inc. v. United States
  791 F.2d 942· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Maritime Administration (MarAd) did not err in permitting temporary transfers of subsidized oil tankers into the Alaskan oil trade, as the agency adequately considered the arguments of domestic carriers.
• James A. Merritt AND Sons v. Marsh
  791 F.2d 328· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against the suspension of a contractor from bidding on government contracts, as the contractor was unlikely to succeed on his constitutional claim and the public interest favored the suspension.
• Dial v. Coler
  791 F.2d 78· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-15 ·cited 4×·via Injunctive Order
  The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for notice and declaratory relief when there is no ongoing violation of federal law to enjoin, and the claims of the Vondran subclass are not ripe for review due to a lack of a concrete dispute about current state policy.
• Temistocles Ramirez de Arellano v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  788 F.2d 762· D.C. Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the controversy has become too attenuated to justify extraordinary equitable relief due to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel and facilities.
• United States v. Town OF Cicero
  786 F.2d 331· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred by denying a preliminary injunction based solely on the facial neutrality of Cicero's residency ordinances, failing to properly apply the disparate impact analysis established in Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
• Martin v. Pinellas Cnty.
  483 So. 2d 445· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-01-10 ·cited 4×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that Charles Martin could not be held in contempt for violating the monitoring provision of an injunction because the order was not clear in its commands regarding monitoring locations. The court affirmed contempt findings against both Charles and W.H. Martin for v