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

• 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
• Carter v. Attorney General OF the United States
  782 F.2d 138· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court lacks jurisdiction to grant a writ of error coram nobis for a conviction obtained in a different federal district court, and that claims attacking an injunction issued by a federal court in another circuit are barred by collateral estoppel.
• Nat'l Adoption Counseling Serv., Inc. v. State
  480 So. 2d 250· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) sought to enjoin National Adoption Counseling Service and its operator from engaging in unlicensed adoption referral activities. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's temporary injunction,
• United States v. Montgomery
  778 F.2d 222· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 4×·via Suit For Injunction
  The court held that the appeal from the original judgment was untimely and that the motion for a new trial was properly denied as untimely, thus affirming the lower court's decisions.
• Chas. S. Winner, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union NO. 115
  777 F.2d 861· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 4×·via Suit For Injunction
  The court held that the determination of whether a union is a successor employer is a matter for the National Labor Relations Board, not an arbitrator or a district court, and thus the employer is not bound to arbitrate the successorship issue.
• Storer Commc'ns, Inc. v. Mogel
  625 F. Supp. 1194· S.D. Fla.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the defendants' sale, distribution, and installation of equipment designed to intercept cable television services without authorization violated federal and state laws, entitling the plaintiffs to preliminary injunctive relief.
• Aurora Bancshares Corp. & Ralph L. Egeland v. Weston
  777 F.2d 385· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 4×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  The court held that the dismissal of a preliminary injunction request, based on discovery violations and unclean hands, is an appealable interlocutory order, and denied a motion to dismiss the appeal.
• Mut. OF Omaha Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Novak
  775 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-16 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against trademark infringement, but remanded for an expedited trial on the merits.
• United States v. City OF Cincinnati
  771 F.2d 161· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 4×
  A consent decree cannot override a bona fide seniority system for layoffs unless the decree explicitly addresses layoffs. However, non-seniority criteria used for layoffs, even among same-day hires, may violate Title VII and require separate adjudication.
• Span-Eng Assocs. v. Weidner
  771 F.2d 464· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an injunction preventing plaintiffs from proceeding in a related Arizona action, as the defendants failed to make a strong showing of necessity for such an injunction.
• Adamsons v. Wharton
  771 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-21 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the appeal frivolous and awarding double costs and attorneys' fees.
• ATS Melbourne, Inc. v. City OF Melbourne
  475 So. 2d 1257· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-08-15 ·cited 4×
  ATS Melbourne, Inc., operating a topless bar (The Doll House IV) in violation of local zoning ordinances, appeals a temporary injunction prohibiting its operation. The court affirms, holding that the city's zoning ordinance is facially valid and that the business lacks standing t
• Am. Exploration Co. v. Columbia GAS Transmission Corp.
  779 F.2d 310· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Columbia's proposed purchase schedule was a permissible curtailment under the contract, as 'market demand' includes price considerations, and Columbia acted within its contractual rights and good faith obligations.
• Transp., Inc. v. Mayflower Servs., Inc.
  769 F.2d 952· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-25 ·cited 4×·via Modification Of Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the prior injunctive relief to prevent public confusion between the taxi companies' similar color schemes.
• The 4245 Corp. v. The City OF Oakland Park
  473 So. 2d 12· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-17 ·cited 4×·via Overbroad Injunction
  The court reversed a permanent injunction that shut down an entire business for lewdness violations, holding that the injunction was overbroad and that the trial court should have limited relief to the illegal acts while allowing the business to operate legitimately.
• NO East-West Hwy. Comm., Inc. v. Chandler
  767 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the highway project was a modernization of an existing road and not a "major Federal action" requiring an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA.
• ST. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carbomedics, Inc.
  764 F.2d 500· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's orders granting preliminary injunctive relief, finding the district court permissibly weighed relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion.
• Zeskind v. Jockey Club Condo. Apts.
  468 So. 2d 1021· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's judgment granting an injunction against keeping a pet and denying a counterclaim was supported by substantial evidence and was correct.
• Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Eden Servs.
  759 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in including northern Virginia in the exclusive territory and in requiring 150% commission, but did not abuse its discretion in enjoining the termination of the distributorship contract.
• Calusa Golf, Inc. v. Lizabeth Carlson and Curtis Carlson
  464 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-02-26 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the fence served a useful purpose, even if spite was a partial motive.
• United States Jaycees v. Cedar Rapids Jaycees
  754 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 4×
  The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court decision, directing the district court to consider whether the USJ's bylaws amendment changes the context of the trademark revocation and to re-evaluate the countercla
• Equibank v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.
  749 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 4×·via Petition For Injunction
  Chandeliers permanently attached to a residence are component parts of the immovable, subject to a mortgage on the property, even if removable without substantial damage.
• Bull v. City OF Atl. Beach
  463 So. 2d 336· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-08 ·cited 4×
  George Bull, a taxpayer and resident of Atlantic Beach, appealed the dismissal of his complaint seeking to enjoin the City from contracting for architectural and engineering services without competitive bidding. The court reversed, holding that a taxpayer has standing to sue to p
• Am. Fed'n OF Television & Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. Inner City Broad. Corp.
  748 F.2d 884· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that the parties did not intend to be bound by an oral agreement, as federal labor law favors collective bargaining agreements and technical rules of contract do not control. The court reversed the denial of arbitration and
• Town OF Orange Park v. Pope
  459 So. 2d 418· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-11-15 ·cited 4×
  The Town of Orange Park appealed a circuit court injunction prohibiting enforcement of zoning restrictions more restrictive than RG-1 on a 2.2-acre parcel. The appellate court reversed, holding that the town council's denial of a rezoning application from RS-2 to RG-1 was support
• Doyle J. Williams v. Wyrick
  747 F.2d 1231· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-08 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that prison regulations restricting an inmate's access to the law library and investigator did not violate his constitutional right of access to the courts, as they were justified by legitimate penological interests.
• The Daily Herald Co. v. Munro
  758 F.2d 350· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the statute's purpose and necessity, and the court should have the opportunity to rule on these issues first.
• Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. O'Connor
  747 F.2d 748· D.C. Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The concurring judge agrees with the court's opinion but clarifies the scope of the MSPB's jurisdiction regarding the Hatch Act.
• Schroeder v. Siro J. Lotito, Jr.
  747 F.2d 801· 1st Cir.· 1984-11-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the notice requirement for profits and damages under federal trademark law does not apply to awards of attorney's fees in exceptional cases.
• Hampton Roads Shipping Ass'n v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n (AFL-CIO)
  746 F.2d 1015· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction restraining a union strike was appropriate, but the order compelling arbitration under a local contract was unnecessary because the dispute was already subject to arbitration and litigation under a master contract.
• The Populist Party v. Herschler
  746 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-15 ·cited 4×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding Wyoming's ballot access requirements for independent candidates and new political parties, thus denying their motion for an injunction pending appeal.
• Laurence Gerard & Firejet Am., Ltd. v. Almouli
  746 F.2d 936· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-12 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the appellees failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law.
• Harris v. United States
  745 F.2d 535· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·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 show irreparable harm, as adequate remedies exist in the Court of Claims.
• Champion v. State OF Cal.
  738 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the deduction of fair share fees, as existing Supreme Court precedent generally upholds such deductions and the specific circumstances did not warrant extraordinary rel
• Briggs Transp. Co. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  739 F.2d 341· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The abrogation of collective bargaining agreements in Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not automatically lift the jurisdictional restrictions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, preventing federal courts from enjoining peaceful employee picketing and strike activities.
• N.A. Sales Co., Inc. v. Chapman Indus. Corp.
  736 F.2d 854· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 4×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that Chapman was in contempt for violating the permanent injunction after its entry, but not for the period before the permanent injunction was issued due to lack of notice. The court affirmed the clarifying order and the award of costs and fees.
• Kidde, Inc. v. E.F. Bavis & Assocs., Inc.
  735 F.2d 1085· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it does not have jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court decision where jurisdiction was based in whole or in part on patent law.
• Bull v. City OF Atl. Beach
  450 So. 2d 570· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-05-11 ·cited 4×
  Bull sued the City of Atlantic Beach and individual officials alleging an illegal contract with an architect in violation of the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint against individual defendants and awarded them attorney's fees under
• The Hillhaven Corp. v. Wis. Dep't OF Health & Soc. Servs.
  733 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, given the appellate court's reversal of the prior ruling on the same issue.
• Orison F. McDONALD, II v. Burrows
  731 F.2d 294· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 4×·via Petition For Injunction
  The court held that extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature and thus do not implicate the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, nor can delays in extradition be reviewed in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
• White v. White
  731 F.2d 1440· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the section 1983 claim for lack of jurisdiction, the dismissal can be affirmed because the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Freedom Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Way
  583 F. Supp. 544· M.D. Fla.· 1984-04-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the plaintiff's and defendant's use of the word 'Freedom' in their business names, and thus no infringement, unfair competition, or dilution occurred. The court also found the plaintiff's claims barred by laches.
• Nysa-Ila Vacation & Holiday Fund & Nysa-Ila GAI Fund v. The Waterfront Comm'n OF NEW York Harbor
  732 F.2d 292· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 4×·via Action For Injunction
  The court held that the Waterfront Commission Compact, including its assessment provision, is federal law due to congressional consent, and therefore is not preempted by ERISA.
• N. Supply Co. v. Greater Dev. & Servs. Corp.
  728 F.2d 363· 6th Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 4×
  Interlocutory orders granting or denying stays of arbitration are appealable by right under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• DOE v. Blum
  729 F.2d 186· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 4×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to claim denial of services, and that New York's practice of sending family planning information to the head of the household complied with federal law.
• H.S. Covington v. Bowers
  442 So. 2d 1068· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-12-20 ·cited 4×
  A dispute arose within a church after a congregation voted to terminate Pastor Covington while he was absent from the meeting. The court upheld the termination, finding that the vote was taken at a properly assembled meeting according to church custom, and therefore courts should
• Fine v. Firestone
  443 So. 2d 253· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-12-16 ·cited 4×
  Martin Fine petitioned for an extraordinary writ to remove a proposed revenue limitation constitutional amendment from the November 1984 Florida ballot. The First District Court of Appeal denied the petition, finding that Fine failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary wr
• Snider v. Grodetz
  442 So. 2d 344· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-12-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a motor home is not a house trailer, mobile home, or truck within the meaning of a restrictive covenant prohibiting those vehicles from a residential subdivision. The restriction did not apply to self-propelled recreational vehicles, and thus the appellants di
• Scarfone v. Culverhouse
  443 So. 2d 122· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-11-23 ·cited 4×·via Mandatory Injunction
  Lee and Patricia Scarfone appealed a mandatory injunction requiring them to remove a window they installed in their penthouse unit's exterior wall at the Pinnacle Apartments. The Florida appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that the Board of Directors lacked authority
• Merrill Lynch v. Thompson
  575 F. Supp. 978· N.D. Fla.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the dispute was subject to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.