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

• IIT v. Vencap, Ltd.
  519 F.2d 1001· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 83×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court's findings were insufficient to definitively determine subject matter jurisdiction or the probability of success on the merits for issuing a preliminary injunction.
• Denis Hanly v. Mitchell
  460 F.2d 640· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-17 ·cited 83×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the General Services Administration (GSA) failed to adequately consider the environmental impact of the proposed jail, requiring further review under NEPA, but affirmed the dismissal of claims regarding the office building.
• Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp.
  122 F.2d 925· 3d Cir.· 1941-09-11 ·cited 83×
  A federal district court that first obtains jurisdiction of the parties and issues may enjoin proceedings involving the same issues and parties begun thereafter in another federal district court.
• Bloxham v. Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co.
  35 Fla. 625· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 83×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld a state statute assessing back taxes on railroad property for years 1879-1881 that had escaped taxation, rejecting the railroad company's claims that it had acquired tax exemption rights and that the reassessment statute violated constitutional pr
• Rothstein v. Wyman
  467 F.2d 226· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 82×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A federal court cannot order state officials to make retroactive welfare payments from state funds, as this violates the Eleventh Amendment and is an improvident exercise of equity powers in the context of cooperative federalism.
• ELI Lilly & Co., Inc. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc.
  460 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 82×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, finding the patent valid and infringed, and that the procedural conduct of the trial court was not an abuse of discretion.
• Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Labs.
  207 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1953-09-16 ·cited 82×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against appellants for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• Pagliero v. Wallace China Co.
  198 F.2d 339· 9th Cir.· 1952-07-01 ·cited 82×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Lanham Act does not protect against the imitation of functional designs, even if they have acquired secondary meaning, but may protect against the denominative use of trade names.
• Gupton v. Vill. KEY & SAW Shop, Inc.
  656 So. 2d 475· Fla.· 1995-06-15 ·cited 81×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether a 1990 amendment to Florida's noncompete statute should be applied retroactively or prospectively. The court held that the amendment made substantive changes to noncompete law and must be appl
• DOE v. NEW York Univ.: John Sawhill
  666 F.2d 761· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 81×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction requiring NYU to readmit the plaintiff, but correctly denied NYU's motion for summary judgment.
• Straughn v. Lindley M. Camp
  293 So. 2d 689· Fla.· 1974-03-07 ·cited 81×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that exempted from ad valorem taxation certain leasehold interests granted by Escambia County and the Santa Rosa Island Authority to private lessees. The court held that the 1971 tax reform legislation (Chapter 71-133) val
• Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke
  475 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-15 ·cited 81×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the stay order as part of an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, and that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was inapplicable to a suit brought under 49 U.S.C.A. § 1017(b)(2).
• Env't Def. Fund v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  468 F.2d 1164· 6th Cir.· 1972-12-13 ·cited 81×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to ongoing federal projects, requiring an environmental impact statement even if construction began before NEPA's effective date, if significant environmental impacts are still anticipated.
• Oscar T. Johnson et ux. v. Alfred B. Killian et ux.
  157 Fla. 754· Fla.· 1946-07-16 ·cited 81×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree granting a mandatory injunction to remove a cement block garage that had encroached onto the neighboring property, holding that the remedy was too drastic under the circumstances and that the property owners had an adequate remedy at la
• Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale
  107 Fla. 304· Fla.· 1932-11-25 ·cited 81×·via Temporary Injunction
  Minority stockholders of Orlando Orange Groves Company sought an injunction against the corporation and its managers for alleged mismanagement, improper fund withdrawals, and asset depletion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's grant of a temporary injunction, ho
• Snook v. Tr. Co. OF Ga. Bank OF Savannah, N.A.
  859 F.2d 865· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-07 ·cited 80×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because the plaintiffs were denied adequate opportunity for discovery, and the district court failed to rule on their motion to compel.
• Donovan v. Bierwirth
  680 F.2d 263· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 80×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while corporate officers serving as pension plan trustees must act solely in the plan participants' interests, they do not violate their duties by incidentally benefiting the corporation if they conduct a careful, impartial investigation. However, their action
• Williams v. Alioto
  625 F.2d 845· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 80×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that appellees were prevailing parties entitled to attorneys' fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, even though the underlying appeal was dismissed as moot, and that the award against officials in their official capacities was proper and payable
• The State OF NEW York v. The Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
  550 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 80×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a violation of NEPA does not automatically constitute irreparable harm, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a sufficient threat of irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• The Wheelabrator Corp. v. Chafee
  455 F.2d 1306· D.C. Cir.· 1971-10-14 ·cited 80×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and the agency's decision not to negotiate was committed to agency discretion and not reviewable.
• Young v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Co.
  438 F.2d 757· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 80×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 applies to private employment discrimination and that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not deprive district courts of jurisdiction over § 1981 actions.
• Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of Am.
  364 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1966-07-14 ·cited 80×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the union's loyalty oath, due to its vagueness, was an unreasonable and unlawful requirement for membership, and therefore the plaintiffs should be admitted to the union without signing it.
• Swan v. Bd. OF Higher Educ. OF the City OF NEW York by Gustave G. Rosenberg
  319 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-04 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a nullity because it was filed after a judgment of dismissal had been entered, and the clerk's failure to formally enter the judgment did not alter this fact. The court also found that the plaintiff's claim was barred by t
• Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Bush
  242 F.2d 156· 5th Cir.· 1957-03-01 ·cited 80×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Louisiana's constitutional provisions and statutes mandating racial segregation in public schools, including the Pupil Assignment Law, are unconstitutional and void as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
• Milwaukee Towne Corp. v. Loew's, Inc.
  190 F.2d 561· 7th Cir.· 1951-07-17 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the trial court's findings regarding damages for the first period were not supported by substantial evidence, reversing that portion of the judgment. The court also found the attorney fee award to be excessive.
• Boykin v. The Town of River Junction
  121 Fla. 902· Fla.· 1935-12-12 ·cited 80×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Town of River Junction's proposed issuance of Mortgage Revenue Certificates to finance a new sewerage system and water supply improvements violates the Florida Constitution because it requires voter approval via a constitutionally-mandated
• Nat'l Sur. Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc.
  103 Fla. 738· Fla.· 1931-11-30 ·cited 80×·via Dissolution Of Injunction
  National Surety Company appealed a judgment for breach of an injunction bond, challenging whether the trial court properly sustained a demurrer to its second amended plea asserting settlement. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a settlement agreement need not be in
• V. T. A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc.
  597 F.2d 220· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-19 ·cited 79×
  The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, finding the sixteen-month delay unreasonable for claims under 60(b)(5) and (6), and the judgment not void under 60(b)(4). The court also affirmed the denial of the contempt motion, finding the differences between the Vac-Tec
• Ezell Littleton v. Peyton Berbling
  468 F.2d 389· 7th Cir.· 1972-10-06 ·cited 79×·via Prohibitory Injunction
  The dissenting judge holds that federal courts lack the power to issue mandatory injunctions regulating the discretion of state court judges and prosecutors, and that state officials are immune from damage claims for acts within their official duties.
• Local 205 v. Gen. Elec. Co. (Telechron Dep't
  233 F.2d 85· 1st Cir.· 1956-04-25 ·cited 79×·via Mandatory Injunction
  A federal district court has jurisdiction under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to compel an employer to arbitrate a dispute, as the Norris-LaGuardia Act's restrictions on injunctions do not apply to orders compelling arbitration.
• Fla. Ventilated Awning Co., Inc. v. Dickson
  67 So. 2d 215· Fla.· 1953-07-28 ·cited 79×
  Florida Ventilated Awning Co. sought to enjoin competitors from using the term "Ventilated Awning" to describe their products, claiming the term had acquired secondary meaning through extensive advertising and sales. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, holding that
• Love v. Miami Laundry Co.
  118 Fla. 137· Fla.· 1934-05-05 ·cited 79×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an injunction that would have prevented former laundry company employees from working for competitors for one year after termination. The court held that equity should not grant injunctive relief to enforce non-compete provisions in personal ser
• Newman v. State OF Ala.
  683 F.2d 1312· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-09 ·cited 78×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that the appeal of the July 15 order was moot due to compliance, and the December 14 order was an improper mandatory injunction because plaintiffs had an adequate legal remedy through contempt proceedings for enforcing the consent decree.
• Camenisch v. The Univ. OF Tex.
  616 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 78×·via Injunction Bond
  The court held that a private right of action exists under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for injunctive relief, and that plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
• Alton & S. Ry. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  463 F.2d 872· D.C. Cir.· 1972-04-11 ·cited 78×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the underlying dispute has been resolved by subsequent legislation and the injunction has expired by its terms, and there is no reasonable expectation of the same legal controversy recurring.
• Langevin v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  447 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 78×
  The court held that tenants in FHA-assisted housing projects are entitled to a fair administrative hearing before rent increases are approved, as a matter of due process.
• Southern v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  373 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-16 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment without proper notice and hearing, and that the new evidence presented in the Rule 60(b) motion warranted reconsideration.
• Lyons v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Gen. Elec. Co.
  222 F.2d 184· 2d Cir.· 1955-03-29 ·cited 78×
  A federal district court's stay of proceedings pending a state court determination is not appealable as a final order, but a writ of mandamus may be appropriate if the state court's decision cannot affect the federal action.
• Conference of Studio Unions v. Loew's Inc.
  193 F.2d 51· 9th Cir.· 1951-11-02 ·cited 78×
  Appellants, who are not directly injured by a lessening of commercial competition in the motion picture industry, cannot recover under the antitrust laws for damages incidental to an alleged conspiracy.
• Lakeland Ideal Farm & Drainage Dist. v. Mitchell
  97 Fla. 890· Fla.· 1929-05-24 ·cited 78×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's overruling of a demurrer in a trespass and injunction case, holding that an action for continuing trespass to real estate involving title determination is local in nature and must be brought in the county where the land is loca
• Burdine v. Sewell
  92 Fla. 375· Fla.· 1926-07-27 ·cited 78×
  This case involves a dispute over rights to use a private alley between properties in Miami. The Florida Supreme Court held that an agreement purporting to grant alley usage rights constituted a revocable personal license rather than a permanent easement appurtenant, and reversed
• Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City OF Deerfield Beach
  661 F.2d 328· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 77×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, as the city's zoning decision interfered with a fundamental right and was not justified by legitimate state interests.
• Hines v. D'Artois
  531 F.2d 726· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 77×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A district court order staying a § 1981 employment discrimination suit pending exhaustion of Title VII administrative remedies is an appealable final order if it effectively puts the plaintiff out of court for an indefinite and protracted period.
• The W. E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc.
  435 F.2d 656· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 77×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that Revlon infringed Bassett's trademark, was in contempt, and must provide a full accounting of profits, but reversed the denial of Bassett's claim for expenses in addition to the accounting.
• A Quaker Action Grp. v. Hickel
  421 F.2d 1111· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-24 ·cited 77×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that while the government has a paramount interest in presidential safety, it must provide factual support for claims that demonstrations threaten it, rather than relying on mere assertion. The preliminary injunction was modified to require advance notice of demons
• The Greater Iowa Corp. v. McLENDON
  378 F.2d 783· 8th Cir.· 1967-05-19 ·cited 77×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that plaintiffs, as neither purchasers nor sellers of the securities in question, lacked standing to bring claims under Sections 5(a), 17(a), and 10(b) of the Securities Acts, and also lacked standing to assert violations of Section 7 of the Investment Company Act
• Harris v. H.A. Goff
  151 So. 2d 642· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-04-09 ·cited 77×
  This case clarifies the proper method for challenging county zoning resolutions. The court held that a direct suit in equity for an injunction is the appropriate method to challenge a zoning resolution as unreasonable or unconstitutional, rather than a writ of certiorari, because
• Fla. Moss Prods. Co. v. City of Leesburg
  93 Fla. 656· Fla.· 1927-03-29 ·cited 77×
  Florida Moss Products Company sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement that land it sold to the City of Leesburg was to be used only for park purposes, but the Florida Supreme Court held that parol evidence cannot be admitted to impose contractual obligations that conflict wit
• NEW Jersey Educ. Ass'n v. Burke
  579 F.2d 764· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-03 ·cited 76×·via Action For Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, and that the state court judgment's res judicata effect on federal claims depends on whether those claims were actually litigated in state court.
• Campbell v. Anderson McGRUDER
  580 F.2d 521· D.C. Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 76×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the District Court's order was clearly erroneous because it was based on speculation and conjecture regarding the new jail's conditions and capacity, rather than substantial evidence.