Injunction

5,622 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 6,126 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Furry v. Rickles
  68 So. 3d 389· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-08-31 ·cited 16×·via Domestic Violence Injunction
  Appellant challenges a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence. The court reversed, finding that the trial court violated due process by failing to conduct a full evidentiary hearing as required by Florida law, instead limiting the parties' presentat
• Alley v. U.S. Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  590 F.3d 1195· 11th Cir.· 2009-12-18 ·cited 16×·via Scope Of Injunctions
  Jennifer Alley sought to compel the Department of Health and Human Services to disclose Medicare claims data under the Freedom of Information Act, but HHS refused based on a 1979 injunction issued in Florida Medical Association v. Department of Health, Education & Welfare that ba
• Verizon Wireless Pers. Commc'ns LP v. City of Jacksonville
  670 F. Supp. 2d 1330· M.D. Fla.· 2009-11-17 ·cited 16×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that the City's denial of Verizon's cell tower application was not supported by substantial evidence, as aesthetic concerns were too generalized and not grounded in specific facts.
• Vaughn v. Boerckel
  20 So. 3d 443· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-10-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the claims against the widow individually without allowing an opportunity to amend the petition.
• Rodger Bookall v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
  995 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-12-03 ·cited 16×·via Ex Parte Injunction
  The court held that an ex parte temporary injunction is invalid if it fails to state the reasons why notice was not required.
• Betterman v. Kukelhan
  977 So. 2d 702· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-03-19 ·cited 16×·via Domestic Violence Injunction
  A former boyfriend appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate a domestic violence injunction. The court reverses, holding that due process requires the trial court to hold a hearing and allow the movant to present evidence before denying a motion to dissolve a domestic vi
• Animal Rights Found. OF Fla., Inc. v. Siegel
  867 So. 2d 451· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The Animal Rights Foundation of Florida appealed a temporary injunction prohibiting it from making specific statements and picketing regarding alleged animal abuse at a timeshare resort. The court reversed, holding that the injunction improperly restricted the Foundation's First
• Amendments TO Fla. Rule OF Crim. Procedure 3.853(d)(1)(A) (Postconviction DNA Testing). Dean C. Wilson v. State
  857 So. 2d 190· Fla.· 2003-09-30 ·cited 16×·via Writ Of Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court consolidates petitions seeking amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 regarding postconviction DNA testing and invokes its rulemaking jurisdiction to address the urgent matter. The Court suspends enforcement deadlines to preserve physical
• Coscia v. OLD Fla. Plantation, Ltd.
  828 So. 2d 488· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-10-18 ·cited 16×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in imposing restrictions on the appellants' use of the easement without sufficient findings or evidence to support the need for such restrictions.
• Charlotte Cnty. v. Imc-Phosphates Co.
  824 So. 2d 298· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-08-22 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  Charlotte County challenged the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary's refusal to recuse himself from deciding the county's exceptions to an administrative law judge's recommended order approving a phosphate mining permit. The court held that the Secretary's p
• Fred Dickinson & the Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Fla. Nat'l Org. FOR Women, Inc.
  763 So. 2d 1245· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-21 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Department of Motor Vehicles appealed a trial court's denial of its motion to transfer venue from Palm Beach County to Leon County in a case challenging the constitutionality of a specialty license plate law. The court reversed, holding that the common law rule requir
• Miller v. Miller
  691 So. 2d 528· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-03-27 ·cited 16×·via Ex Parte Injunction
  Matthew Miller appeals an order granting a six-month injunction for protection against domestic violence that excluded him from his home and restricted his access to his minor child. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court violated due process b
• The State Chem. Mfg. Co. v. Lopez
  642 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-09-21 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a presumption of irreparable injury applies to customer solicitation, but not to employment by a competitor, and that the non-compete agreement's duration was reasonable.
• Autoskill Inc. v. Nat'l Educ. Support Sys., Inc.
  994 F.2d 1476· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-19 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed within the extended period provided by 11 U.S.C. § 108(b)(2) and that the appeal was not voided by the automatic bankruptcy stay due to Bankruptcy Rule 6009. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding Auto
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNEIL-P.P.C., Inc.
  973 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the term 'PM' is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning, and that the trade dress for 'Tylenol PM' is not likely to cause consumer confusion with 'Excedrin PM'.
• E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co.
  955 F.2d 1327· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-07 ·cited 16×·via Overbroad Injunction
  The court held that Joseph's counterclaims were barred by res judicata and that his use of the "Joseph Gallo" name on cheese infringed the Winery's trademarks, but affirmed the modification of the injunction.
• McNEIL-P.C.C., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
  938 F.2d 1544· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a plaintiff can prove a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act by demonstrating that the defendant's own studies are unreliable, without conducting its own independent studies.
• Congregation Lubavitch and Rabbi Sholom B. Kalmanson v. City OF Cincinnati
  923 F.2d 458· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
• State OF Colo. v. Idarado Mining Co.
  916 F.2d 1486· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 16×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that CERCLA § 121(e)(2) does not authorize a state to seek injunctive relief to enforce its independently selected cleanup plan when the federal government is not involved.
• Kucharek v. Hanaway
  902 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Wisconsin's obscenity statute is not unconstitutionally vague or a denial of equal protection, and therefore the injunction against its enforcement should be dissolved.
• Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecomms. Grp.
  900 F.2d 1546· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in basing a preliminary injunction on a finding of 'secondary meaning in the making,' as this doctrine is not recognized under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and the evidence was insufficient to establish actual secondary meaning.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. P*I*E Nationwide, Inc.
  894 F.2d 887· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-30 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A court of appeals may exercise equitable discretion when asked to enforce a National Labor Relations Board order, but equitable defenses like laches require unreasonable delay and resulting harm, which were not present here.
• Schering Corp. & Key Pharms., Inc. v. Vitarine Pharms., Inc.
  889 F.2d 490· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions after a voluntary dismissal, but reversed the imposition of sanctions because the plaintiffs' assertions of health risks were adequately grounded in fact at the time of filing.
• In re Am. Hardwoods, Inc. v. Deutsche Credit Corp.
  885 F.2d 621· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 16×·via Permanent Injunction
  The bankruptcy court lacks the power under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to issue a permanent injunction against a creditor enforcing a state court judgment against nondebtor guarantors, as this would effectively discharge their liability, which is prohibited by 11 U.S.C. § 524(e).
• Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ'g Grp., Inc.
  886 F.2d 490· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the risk of consumer confusion from the parody cover was slight and outweighed by the public interest in free expression.
• Warner Bros. Inc. v. DAE RIM Trading, Inc.
  877 F.2d 1120· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the award of $100 in statutory damages and denial of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, reversed the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, and dismissed the attorney's appeal with sanctions.
• Modern Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc.
  871 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a choice of law provision in a franchise agreement may be unenforceable if it violates a fundamental public policy of the state with a materially greater interest in the transaction, even if the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties.
• Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ross Bicycles, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1176· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-27 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred by presuming consumer confusion from intentional copying and by deemphasizing labeling as a matter of law due to secondary meaning.
• R.C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Unilever N.V.
  867 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-17 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a competitor plaintiff can have standing to challenge a merger under the Clayton Act if they demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding a threat of antitrust injury, even if the alleged injury is speculative.
• White v. Carlucci
  862 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A Title VII plaintiff must independently establish a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction, even in cases involving federal employees, and mere reassignment does not constitute irreparable harm.
• Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. Roger Marrero, M.D.
  536 So. 2d 1094· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-11-18 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Board of Medicine appealed a circuit court order that permanently enjoined the Board from proceeding on Dr. Marrero's medical license application after he withdrew it. The appellate court reversed, holding that Dr. Marrero was required to exhaust administrative remedi
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union
  848 F.2d 856· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits enjoining the strike, and the Railway Labor Act's major dispute procedures are superseded by the Interstate Commerce Act in this instance.
• Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Cnty. OF Allegheny
  842 F.2d 655· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed a judgment denying attorney's fees to an excess carrier for pursuing an action against a primary insurer, disagreeing with a prior decision that allowed such fees.
• Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel
  851 F.2d 1152· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the district court had the power to amend its judgment, it abused its discretion by failing to expressly consider the public interest and by not ordering the Secretary to comply with his own regulations regarding tribal consultation and lease planning. T
• Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro
  834 F.2d 326· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while prisoners have a Fourteenth Amendment right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain an abortion, the Eighth Amendment does not mandate state provision of elective, medically unnecessary abortions.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Suter
  832 F.2d 988· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-22 ·cited 16×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that Suter's appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate the injunction was untimely and frivolous, and that the disbursement order appeal also lacked merit.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Am. Bd. OF Trade, Inc.
  830 F.2d 431· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the appointment of a receiver and the freezing of personal assets, but questioned the sua sponte imposition of civil contempt sanctions.
• Emory Searcey v. Crim
  815 F.2d 1389· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in resolving the constitutional question of whether public schools created a public forum at the summary judgment stage, as factual development was necessary. However, the court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment and prelim
• Cypress Barn, Inc. v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  812 F.2d 1363· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-23 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a nonparty cannot be held in civil contempt for violating an order of which it had no notice, even if it had notice of a prior, superseded order.
• Marshak v. Gino Tonetti
  813 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by accelerating the trial date and denying a jury trial, requiring a new trial.
• Gelco Corp. v. Coniston P'rs
  811 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Coniston failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. Constitutional issues regarding the Minnesota Control Share Acquisition Act were deemed moot.
• Paisey v. Honorable Linda L. Vitale
  807 F.2d 889· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that merely filing a state court action, even if retaliatory, does not constitute "under color of state law" for a Section 1983 claim, and thus the plaintiff failed to state a claim for injunctive relief.
• Schultz v. Frisby
  807 F.2d 1339· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The dissenting judge argues that the town's ordinance prohibiting residential picketing is a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that balances the right to privacy against free speech rights.
• Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Emulex Corp.
  805 F.2d 380· Fed. Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 16×·via Security For Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction must be vacated if the district court fails to hold a hearing, make findings of fact, and provide a statement of reasons as required by Rules 52 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Mosely v. de Moya
  497 So. 2d 696· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-11-04 ·cited 16×
  In this corporate control dispute, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that Badgett Resources' board consisted of eight directors at the time of a stock purchase agreement, but reversed the trial court's order granting de Moya permanent status as presid
• Lewis OIL Co., Inc. v. Alachua Cnty.
  496 So. 2d 184· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-10-06 ·cited 16×
  Lewis Oil Company appealed the dismissal of its declaratory judgment action challenging the validity and enforceability of Alachua County's underground storage tank ordinance. The court reversed, holding that the ordinance had not become effective pending DER approval and that Le
• LeLAC Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Routh
  493 So. 2d 1131· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-09-17 ·cited 16×
  A corporation involuntarily dissolved and then reinstated within three years may pursue a cause of action that accrued after dissolution and before reinstatement.
• Sharp v. Caspar Weinberger
  798 F.2d 1521· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's jurisdiction was not based on the Little Tucker Act, as the appellant's claims for equitable relief were properly grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act, and claims for contract breach seek
• Manbourne, Inc. v. Conrad
  796 F.2d 884· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining the issuance of stock to option-holders, as it was part of a scheme to deprive the majority shareholder of control.
• Educ. Testing Servs. v. Katzman
  793 F.2d 533· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court's preliminary injunction was supported by a likelihood of success on the merits for copyright infringement, despite procedural deficiencies in the findings of fact.