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

• The Vill. OF Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp.
  371 So. 2d 663· Fla.· 1979-05-03 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a municipality cannot be held liable through inverse condemnation for depletion of groundwater from a shallow aquifer, because landowners have no constitutionally protected property right in the corpus of water beneath their land—only a limited
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Hunt
  591 F.2d 1211· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 33×·via Request For Injunction
  The court held that the speculative limit regulation was valid and that the Hunts violated it, reversing the denial of injunctive relief and remanding the disgorgement issue.
• Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. CASA Guzman
  569 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to require additional security or in issuing the preliminary injunction in an interpleader action.
• Compact van Equip. Co., Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.
  566 F.2d 952· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to preserve patent claims for litigation, as it met the necessary criteria for such an extraordinary remedy.
• Samuel C. Ennis & Co., Inc. v. Woodmar Realty Co.
  542 F.2d 45· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-21 ·cited 33×
  A federal court may enjoin state court proceedings to prevent relitigation of issues already determined in the federal bankruptcy proceeding, even for non-parties who participated in the federal case.
• Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union
  531 F.2d 617· D.C. Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district judge's conclusion that the Union did not act in good faith to end the strike, but remanded due to the lack of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• The Robert Stigwood Grp. Ltd. v. O'Reilly
  530 F.2d 1096· 2d Cir.· 1976-01-19 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that each separate performance of a copyrighted work constitutes a distinct infringement, and that multiple copyrights covering different aspects of a work (like individual songs within an opera) can each trigger statutory minimum damages per performance, unless th
• Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. v. Colby
  509 F.2d 1362· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-07 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the presumption of regularity applies to the classification of information, and the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, allows for de novo judicial review of classification, shifting the burden to the agency to justify withholding information.
• The State OF Tex. v. Reuben Pankey
  441 F.2d 236· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 33×·via Suit For Injunction
  A state's suit seeking protection from transboundary environmental pollution, based on federal common law, arises under the laws of the United States and is within the jurisdiction of federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), regardless of the state's party status.
• DeBREMAECKER v. Short
  433 F.2d 733· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-03 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the class action but vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings due to a new ordinance.
• In re the Complaint of Unterweser Reederei v. M/S Bremen & Unterweser Reederei GMBH
  428 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-19 ·cited 33×
  The court should enforce forum selection clauses unless they are unreasonable or violate public policy, rather than invalidating them outright.
• de Vita v. Sills
  422 F.2d 1172· 3d Cir.· 1970-03-09 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin state proceedings and that abstention was inappropriate, but the plaintiff's claims regarding self-incrimination, prejudicial publicity, and denial of effective counsel were not grounds for i
• Dorfmann v. Boozer
  414 F.2d 1168· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-16 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted because adequate legal remedies existed and the injunction failed to balance the equities between the parties.
• Wooten v. Ohler
  303 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-06 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Sheriff's interference with peaceful picketing, based on a policy of protecting non-union shops, likely violated constitutional rights, and thus the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Cassady v. Consol. Naval Stores Co.
  119 So. 2d 35· Fla.· 1960-03-23 ·cited 33×
  Florida Supreme Court held that a statute authorizing the assessment of separately owned subsurface mineral and oil rights for ad valorem taxation is unconstitutional because it unlawfully delegates legislative taxing power to private surface owners who can trigger assessments th
• Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.
  273 F.2d 720· 5th Cir.· 1959-12-18 ·cited 33×
• N. Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co.
  114 So. 2d 347· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-08-27 ·cited 33×
  North Dade Water Co. and the City of North Miami Beach appealed a temporary injunction preventing them from discharging sewage effluent into lakes on Adken Land Co.'s property. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that the chancellor did not abuse discretion in granting it
• Motor Credit Corp. v. Woolverton
  99 So. 2d 286· Fla.· 1957-12-20 ·cited 33×
  Motor Credit Corporation sought to enforce a lien and conditional sales agreement against Mrs. Woolverton for a house trailer she purchased from a dealer. The Florida Supreme Court held that despite the Certificate of Title Act's recordation requirements, where a finance company
• Reaver v. Florida
  52 So. 2d 682· Fla.· 1951-05-29 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision denying an injunction to an airport owner who sought to prevent a neighboring drive-in theater from being built. The court held that the theater's construction, while potentially creating a hazard, was a reasonable use o
• McCOMB v. Wyandotte Furniture Co.
  169 F.2d 766· 8th Cir.· 1948-08-28 ·cited 33×
  The court held that warehouse employees and a bookkeeper for a retail chain were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that the cessation of violations did not render the case moot.
• Perry Trading Co. v. The City of Tallahassee & G. Powledge
  128 Fla. 424· Fla.· 1937-06-08 ·cited 33×
  Perry Trading Company sought to enjoin enforcement of a Tallahassee ordinance regulating auction sales. The Florida Supreme Court held that while Sections 6, 7, and 8 (requiring advertising, item segregation, and bonding) were valid exercises of police power despite burdensome co
• Appalachian Elec. Power Co. v. Smith
  67 F.2d 451· 4th Cir.· 1933-10-03 ·cited 33×
  The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in taking jurisdiction and rendering a decree on the merits. The suit was reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that the suit could not be sustained either as a suit to enjoin u
• Ebersbach Constr. Co. v. Charles Ringling Co.
  100 Fla. 1270· Fla.· 1930-11-18 ·cited 33×
  Ebersbach Construction Company appealed orders granting a rehearing and allowing third-party taxpayers Morningside, Inc. and J. Paul Gaines to intervene in a suit involving a city street improvement contract and assessment dispute. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the intervent
• Simmons v. Williford
  60 Fla. 359· Fla.· 1910-06-01 ·cited 33×
  The court reversed an injunction granted to a buyer of an orange crop, holding that the buyer had an adequate remedy at law through replevin. The buyer's claim that the seller was insolvent and intended to remove the fruit clandestinely was insufficient to justify equitable relie
• Long v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Warden, Fla. State Prison, John Does, as designee of Barry Reddish, and/or Mark S. Inch
  924 F.3d 1171· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-22 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
• Fla. Carry, Inc. v. Univ. OF N. Fla.
  133 So. 3d 966· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-12-10 ·cited 32×
  Florida Carry, Inc. and a UNF student challenged the University of North Florida's policy prohibiting firearms in vehicles on campus. The appellate court held that state universities lack authority to waive the statutory exception allowing securely encased firearms in vehicles, a
• Lukacs v. Luton
  982 So. 2d 1217· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-05-27 ·cited 32×
  The First District Court of Appeal affirmed an injunction for protection against repeat violence, holding that section 784.046(1)(b), Florida Statutes authorizes such an injunction where a person commits stalking against the petitioner, even if only one act of stalking occurred.
• Painewebber Inc. v. Hartmann
  921 F.2d 507· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court should reverse the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction because the timeliness of an arbitration demand is a question for the arbitrator, not the court.
• Aretha S. Baker v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp.
  856 F.2d 167· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a motion for a preliminary injunction without an evidentiary hearing, as irreparable harm is presumed in Title VII cases and a hearing is necessary to determine all elements for injunctive relief.
• Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
  833 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 32×·via Status Quo Injunction
  The court held that the unions' objection to the railway company's unilateral addition of drug screen urinalysis to routine employee medical examinations constitutes a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjust
• Salinger v. Random House, Inc.
  811 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the biographer's extensive quoting and close paraphrasing of unpublished letters, even if for scholarly purposes, constitutes copyright infringement and does not qualify as fair use under ordinary circumstances.
• In re G. & A. Books, Inc. v. Stern
  770 F.2d 288· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the Times Square Rehabilitation Project, while impacting adult businesses, was a content-neutral urban renewal effort serving substantial government interests and thus did not violate the First Amendm
• Klitzman v. Krut
  744 F.2d 955· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a search warrant authorizing the seizure of all client files and financial records of a law firm was overbroad and violated the Fourth Amendment, warranting a preliminary injunction for the return of the seized materials.
• Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey
  734 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction over all defendants, the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the remedy at law (money damages) was adequate.
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. Watt
  716 F.2d 946· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction based on a likely violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) due to the agency's failure to supplement its Environmental Impact Statement after significant revis
• United States v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Chicago
  717 F.2d 378· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while the district court correctly interpreted the consent decree's obligation for the United States to provide available desegregation funds, its imposition of specific remedies, including a monetary amount and an escrow fund, was premature and an abuse of di
• Interdynamics, Inc. v. Firma Wolf
  698 F.2d 157· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 32×·via Injunctive Decree
  The dissenting judge would remand for an order determining that the defendant's new product (D3) does not violate the injunctive provisions of the consent decree.
• Ambach v. Bell
  686 F.2d 974· D.C. Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Secretary's decision to use 1970 census data for fund allocation was not arbitrary or capricious, and the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Mich. Brick, Inc.
  679 F.2d 100· 6th Cir.· 1982-05-26 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A preliminary injunction cannot be granted without findings of irreparable injury to the plaintiff, even when using the 'balance of hardships' test.
• Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Elissa Landi Paparone
  414 So. 2d 564· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-04-28 ·cited 32×
  Lake Placid Holding Company sought to discharge a lis pendens filed by Elissa Paparone, a real estate broker claiming entitlement to a commission and profits interest in a property transaction. The court held that Paparone's claim, being based solely on a broker's commission agre
• Alton BOX Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp.
  682 F.2d 1267· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 32×·via Action For Injunction
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred federal courts from enjoining the state court action, and there was no independent federal jurisdiction for declaratory relief on a preemption defense.
• Demby v. Schweiker
  671 F.2d 507· D.C. Cir.· 1981-12-15 ·cited 32×·via Request For Injunction
  The court held that the rescission act did not implicitly repeal the ten percent set-aside provision because neither of the two tests for implied repeal was satisfied.
• United States v. Ga. Power Co.
  634 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-22 ·cited 32×·via Modification Of Injunction
  The court held that a seniority system's modification based on the Supreme Court's Teamsters decision was improper because the system was not bona fide and thus not protected by Teamsters. The district court erred in modifying its prior decree.
• Dolphin Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. DEL Bene
  388 So. 2d 1268· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-09-17 ·cited 32×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that a condominium association becomes the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees under Florida's Condominium Act when a unit owner voluntarily dismisses their action against the association, even if the owner subsequently files an identical suit.
• Henri and Mary Tatro v. The State OF Tex.
  625 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) is a necessary related service under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) and that refusing to provide it violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
• Health Clubs, Inc. v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Robert Eagan
  377 So. 2d 28· Fla. 5th DCA· 1979-11-07 ·cited 32×·via Overbroad Injunction
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an overbroad public nuisance injunction against a health club that prohibited all commingling of opposite sexes, even for lawful purposes, but affirmed contempt convictions for violating the injunction while the appeal was pending.
• Spaulding v. Nielsen
  599 F.2d 728· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 32×
  Federal probation officers are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their alleged misconduct in investigating and preparing a presentence report.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Koracorp Indus., Inc.
  575 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 32×
  Summary judgment for most defendants is reversed because the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof and genuine issues of material fact existed regarding culpability and likelihood of future violations. Summary judgment for Andersen is affirmed because no materia
• Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance
  559 F.2d 1286· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 32×
• Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.
  541 F.2d 365· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-28 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court's order approving a tender of back pay and solicitation of releases from class members is not an appealable order under either 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1).