Injunction

5,622 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 6,142 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Dynamic Cablevision OF Fla., Inc. v. Biltmore II Condo. Assoc., Inc.
  498 So. 2d 632· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-12-09
  This case addresses whether a condominium association violated unit owners' rights by refusing to allow a cable television provider to install external wiring on the building's exterior. The court upheld the association's injunction, finding that the Declaration of Condominium gr
• City OF Jacksonville v. Hugh F. Culverhouse for the Simpson R. Walker Tr.
  498 So. 2d 618· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-12-05
  The City of Jacksonville appeals a circuit court injunction preventing enforcement of zoning restrictions on a 18-acre parcel. The court reversed, holding that the circuit court improperly substituted its judgment for the City Council's zoning decision without finding the denial
• Cnty. Sanitation Dist. NO. 2 OF LOS Angeles Cnty. v. Inland Container Corp.
  803 F.2d 1074· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-04 ·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the District's suit seeking equitable relief was inequitable because it failed to join an indispensable party (Chino) and attempted to circumvent a mandatory arbitration clause.
• Floralife, Inc. v. Floraline Int'l, Inc.
  807 F.2d 518· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-31 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  A stipulation resolving a trademark dispute, which outlines the gist of a consent order, allows the district court to formulate the exact language of the injunction to ensure its effectiveness.
• Martin Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. v. James P. Noble, M.D.
  496 So. 2d 222· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-10-22
  Martin Memorial Hospital Association appeals a trial court's decision that declared a hospital medical staff by-law unreasonable and enjoined its enforcement. The by-law gave the attending surgeon final authority to determine whether surgery qualified as an emergency, which an an
• Preemption Devices, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co.
  803 F.2d 1170· Fed. Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that sales of specified components were contemptuous violations of the injunction, but remanded for findings on whether modified devices infringed the patent claims.
• Megaphone Co. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  361 F.2d 857· S.D. Fla.· 1986-09-03 ·via Preliminary Injunction
• Butler v. Pollard
  800 F.2d 223· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-21
  The district court erred by granting an injunction inconsistent with the jury's verdict and by not directing a verdict for the county on the trespass claim.
• Salyers v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  798 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that intervening judicial and administrative developments mooted the plaintiffs' claims for class declaratory and injunctive relief.
• Lizabeth Carlson and Curtis Carlson v. Calusa Golf Inc.
  498 So. 2d 461· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-08-12 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment because the undisputed evidence showed the fence served a useful purpose, negating the claim that spite alone was the motivation.
• Berry v. Bean
  796 F.2d 713· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  A base commander has broad authority to exclude civilians from his command area for non-arbitrary reasons, and a preliminary injunction should not be granted if the plaintiff has no chance of success on the merits.
• Newman Signs, Inc. v. Sinner
  796 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-23
  The court held that Newman's claim for just compensation is barred by res judicata, as the issue was previously decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court and affirmed by a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question by the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Marlow Invs., N.V. v. S.A.B.T.C. Townhouse Ass'n, Inc.
  493 So. 2d 14· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-07-17
  Marlow Investments, the original developer of a condominium association, guaranteed a $216,000 loan and sought equitable relief in the form of a mandatory injunction to compel the association to exonerate it from liability by paying the loan. The appellate court affirmed the tria
• Sims Varner & Assocs., Inc. v. Blanchard
  794 F.2d 1123· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that it had interlocutory jurisdiction over certain portions of the district court's orders denying injunctive relief, but affirmed those denials due to the contractor's substantial completion of the work and the plaintiff's delay in seeking equitable relief.
• Town OF Islip v. Eastern AIR Lines
  793 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the judgment of civil contempt was improper because the district court's injunction orders were ambiguous and Eastern took reasonable steps to seek clarification.
• Rice v. Cities Sewer Serv. OF Broward Cnty., Inc.
  488 So. 2d 662· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-05-21
  The court held that the trial court erred in applying the compulsory counterclaim rule because Rice's contract claims were not logically related to the replevin action, and Pugh was not a necessary party to the compulsory counterclaim.
• Roghan v. Block
  790 F.2d 540· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Wolfson v. Elton M. Cary
  488 So. 2d 864· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-05-13
  Frances Wolfson appeals a dissolution judgment denying her a special equity in her ex-husband's GIC stock and refusing to permanently enjoin three newly-issued common shares. The court holds that three common shares issued in excess of authorized shares are ultra vires and void,
• Neurological Assocs. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.
  632 F. Supp. 1078· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-29 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the action was improperly removed because the state court lacked jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, and thus, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, the federal court also lacked jurisdiction.
• Sealy Mattress Co. OF Mich. v. Sealy
  789 F.2d 582· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The dissenting judge believes the majority misinterpreted the consent decree by focusing on its purposes rather than its plain language, and that the decree should be modified, not construed, to limit its scope.
• Mozingo v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  488 So. 2d 846· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-04-22 ·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that rescission of a settlement agreement is generally not available for delayed payment absent fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence, but the appellant may amend his complaint for breach of contract.
• Dep't OF Banking & Fin. v. Standard Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  488 So. 2d 50· Fla.· 1986-04-10
  The court held that incriminating statements made by the appellee to Detective Roxburgh were admissible because his right to remain silent was scrupulously honored and he knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, reversing the trial court's suppression order in part.
• Gene Harris Travel Serv., Inc. v. Harris Travel Serv., Inc.
  486 So. 2d 19· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-03-18
  Florida appellate court affirmed an injunction prohibiting Gene Harris Travel Service from using "Harris" in its trade name, finding that name similarity caused customer confusion likely to harm the plaintiff's business.
• Micro Plus, Inc. v. Forte Data Sys., Inc.
  484 So. 2d 1340· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-03-12
  Forte Data Systems sought and obtained a temporary injunction against former employee Jay Anderson and competitor Micro Plus for violations of a non-compete and confidentiality agreement. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the injunction order, with the opi
• Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp.
  785 F.2d 1013· Fed. Cir.· 1986-03-04
  The court held that Magna-Graphics' post-injunction activities, including testing the incomplete machine, constituted willful infringement, affirming the district court's reinstated judgment.
• Gallanosa v. United States
  785 F.2d 116· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Gallanosas failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and the citizen child's medical needs did not present a substantial constitutional question to confer jurisdiction.
• Brant v. United States Polo Assoc.
  631 F. Supp. 71· S.D. Fla.· 1986-02-24 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof for preliminary injunctive relief, as the suspension did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under a rule of reason analysis.
• Reed v. City OF Hollywood
  483 So. 2d 759· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-02-05
  Jack Reed appealed the dismissal of his suit seeking to enjoin demolition of his house ordered by the City of Hollywood's Unsafe Structures Board. The trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding Reed failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The appell
• Hazel v. GAY & Petway Ins., Inc.
  482 So. 2d 536· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-02-04 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  A former insurance agent was found to have violated a preliminary injunction prohibiting contact with and solicitation of the employer's customers. The appellate court affirmed the contempt finding but reversed the trial court's overly broad advisory construction of the injunctio
• White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.
  781 F.2d 1224· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's decision to vacate the preliminary injunction, finding that the amended acquisition agreement sufficiently ensured Emerson's independence and viability as a competitor, thus eliminating anti-competitive concerns.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Kroger Co.
  778 F.2d 1161-1171· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·via Boys Markets Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale of stores pending arbitration, as the union failed to demonstrate sufficient equitable grounds.
• Lakeshore Terminal & Pipeline Co. v. Def. Fuel Supply Ctr. & Mil. Traffic Mgmt. Command
  777 F.2d 1171· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Braman Motors, Inc. v. Ward
  479 So. 2d 225· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-12-03 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  Braman Motors appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent a former employee from soliciting Rolls Royce customers using a confidential customer list developed over years at significant expense. The court reversed, finding Braman demonstrated a reasonable lik
• Peoples GAS Sys., Inc. v. Hotel Ocean 71 Assocs., Ltd.
  479 So. 2d 203· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-11-26
  Peoples Gas System appealed a judgment finding it negligent in advising Hotel Ocean 71 Associates to repair rather than replace a defective steam boiler, resulting in overcharges for natural gas. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of the hote
• Nat'l Elevator Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Union OF Elevator Constructors, AFL-CIO
  776 F.2d 374· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-08 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the union's actions constituted an arbitrable grievance and a strike, justifying injunctive relief under the Boys Market exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act. However, the International Union was improperly included in the injunction.
• United States v. a & B Heating & Air Conditioning
  57 B.R. 360· M.D. Fla.· 1985-09-04
  The court held that a corporation lacks standing to contest taxes assessed against its president, and the Anti-Injunction Act bars a bankruptcy court from enjoining the collection of such taxes.
• United States v. State OF Or.
  769 F.2d 1410· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-29 ·via Modification Of Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of certain fishing regulations, finding they violated the Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
• S.E.L. Maduro (Florida), Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  765 F.2d 1057· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-16 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the prior New York litigation, affirmed by the Second Circuit, had a preclusive effect on the current dispute, requiring vacatur of the preliminary injunction.
• Detroit v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  767 F.2d 274· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-11
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action because there was no active case or controversy, as the parties had contractually agreed that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had the authority to authorize changes to joint routes and rates.
• THE Florida BAR v. Snapp
  472 So. 2d 459· Fla.· 1985-06-27 ·via Permanent Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court permanently enjoined James E. Snapp from the unauthorized practice of law, including representing others for a fee in insurance and personal injury disputes and giving legal advice, based on his admission of the allegations.
• Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr., Inc. v. United States
  617 F. Supp. 279· S.D. Fla.· 1985-06-26
  The court held that the Navy's decision to release certain technical proposal information was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful, and therefore denied the plaintiff's request for an injunction.
• In re ESM Gov't Sec., Inc.
  52 B.R. 372· S.D. Fla.· 1985-06-19
  The court held that the debtor, ESM Government Securities, Inc., qualified as a stockbroker and its involuntary Chapter 7 proceeding must be administered as a stockbroker liquidation under Subchapter III of the Bankruptcy Code.
• Supal v. Pelot
  469 So. 2d 949· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-05-30
  Private property owners appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss a suit by two individuals seeking to establish a public road by prescription on the owners' land. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the denial of a mo
• von Wezyk v. The Honorable Paul Marko III as Cir. Judge for the Seventeenth Jud. Cir.
  468 So. 2d 1121· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-05-22
  Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a circuit judge from enforcing a county day care ordinance, arguing the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and that such enforcement belonged exclusively in county court. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding t
• Bell v. Streetwise Records, Ltd.
  761 F.2d 67· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-08 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing both parties to use the trade name and in concluding ownership solely based on public association without considering all circumstances.
• 754 Orange AVE., Inc. v. City OF W. Haven
  761 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the City's zoning and licensing ordinances, as applied to the plaintiff's adult bookstore, were likely unconstitutional due to vagueness, overbreadth, and impermissible prior restraint on First Amendment expression, warranting a preliminary injunction.
• Zalarick v. Monroe Cnty.
  467 So. 2d 1088· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-04-30
  The court held that the commercial nursery use of a lot zoned for single-family residential use was improper, and the county was not equitably estopped from enforcing its zoning ordinance.
• Schultz v. Rainey
  467 So. 2d 834· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-04-26 ·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that the property appraiser is entitled to a ruling on the merits of his complaint, even if the tax collector cannot collect additional taxes for the current year.
• LaROUCHE v. State Bd. OF Elections
  758 F.2d 998· 4th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction to place LaRouche's name on the ballot because he failed to meet federal requirements for matching funds, which North Carolina incorporated into its ballot access statute.
• United States v. Viomar Co.
  616 F. Supp. 24· S.D. Fla.· 1985-03-21 ·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the movant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a valid gift, specifically regarding the essential element of delivery of the deeds, and therefore denied the motion to release property from the restraining order.