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
-
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury's findings of non-infringement, non-invalidity, and no inequitable conduct were supported by substantial evidence, and that the district court did not err in its rulings on damages, willful infringement, or d
-
793 F.2d 795·
7th Cir.·
1986-06-04
·cited 16×
The Railway Labor Act does not prohibit secondary picketing by railroad unions, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining such peaceful picketing.
-
The court held that a preliminary injunction, even if mooted by happenstance, can constitute sufficient success to warrant attorney's fees under the ESA and OCSLA citizens' suit provisions, but fees for claims not substantially related to the successful claims should be excluded.
-
The court held that Kennedy Stadium is a nonpublic forum, and the City's policy restricting its use to civic, charitable, and non-profit organizations is a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restriction, thus the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
-
482 So. 2d 501·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1986-01-22
·cited 16×
The Board of Medical Examiners appeals a circuit court order denying its motion to dismiss and finding it in contempt for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order that prohibited consideration of a doctor's nolo contendere plea in administrative license revocation procee
-
The court held that the omission of copyright notice from toys manufactured and sold by Takara was curable under 17 U.S.C. § 405(a)(2), even if deliberate, and that Hasbro's subsequent registration and efforts to add notice constituted a valid cure, thus affirming the preliminary
-
759 F.2d 474·
5th Cir.·
1985-05-06
·cited 16×
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and injunction, modifying only a minor aspect of the injunction's wording regarding Tandy affiliates.
-
The court held that Texas's lemon law does not violate manufacturers' due process or equal protection rights, nor is it preempted by federal law.
-
464 So. 2d 1168·
Fla.·
1985-01-10
·cited 16×
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Allen v. Avondale principle that property owners cannot rely on pre-acquisition neighborhood changes to invalidate restrictive covenants. The Woods, who purchased a motel already in violation of deed restrictions limiting the property to singl
-
A stay for Pullman abstention is appealable under the final-judgment rule, even if the federal suit is not entirely dismissed, because it can cause irreparable harm through delay.
-
The appeal from the preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the relief granted has already been implemented and the underlying case remains active in the district court.
-
The dissenting judge argues that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Eighth Amendment violations.
-
The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, finding that neither party demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.
-
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has a statutory duty to develop and implement a system that ensures nursing facilities receiving federal funds provide high-quality patient care, not just theoretical capability.
-
453 So. 2d 1143·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1984-07-10
·cited 16×
Belle Island Investment Co. and its attorneys appeal a judgment of ouster that prohibited them from suing the court-appointed receiver and from acting inconsistently with the receiver's authority. The court affirmed, holding that a privately appointed foreign receiver has standin
-
The court reversed a temporary injunction granted without bond, holding that while abatement was proper where duplicate actions involved the same parties and causes of action, the trial court erred by failing to require a bond absent a finding of the opposing party's financial in
-
The court held that the district court erred by not determining whether the dispute was major or minor under the Railway Labor Act before ruling on the preliminary injunction.
-
Enforcement proceedings under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act cannot be used as a collateral attack on a marketing order's conformity with the Act; challenges must first be resolved through the administrative process.
-
The court held that the district court erred in voiding the administrative debarment proceeding and deciding the substantive issue, as exhaustion and finality requirements were not met and no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing them.
-
The court held that Section 2 of the Safety Appliance Acts mandates specific safety equipment, not operating procedures, and thus does not prohibit employees from going between cars during coupling operations.
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit with prejudice because the plaintiffs' timely notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) terminated the action before the court could act.
-
The court held that the district court erred in issuing an injunction because the prisoner failed to demonstrate that the prison's copying policy impeded his constitutional right of access to the courts.
-
The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction without complying with the procedural requirements of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, specifically failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on disputed facts and make required findings.
-
Defendants in mortgage foreclosure actions sought injunctions to prevent the plaintiff from continuing litigation, claiming a settlement agreement had been reached. The court held that the Statute of Frauds applies to oral settlement agreements involving the transfer of property,
-
The court held that the bankruptcy judge erred in issuing turnover orders against the State of Ohio, as the state likely possessed sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and the orders constituted impermissible retroactive monetary awards from the state treasury.
-
685 F.2d 1199·
9th Cir.·
1982-09-03
·cited 16×
The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the agricultural searches, requiring reversal and remand, but affirmed the validity of customs searches of individuals arriving from the Northern Mariana Islands.
-
The court declined to vacate its previously granted stay of a preliminary injunction, finding the appellees' cited cases inapposite.
-
The court held that the unconditional $5,000 fine imposed for civil contempt was punitive and impermissible in a civil proceeding, but the finding of civil contempt itself was valid.
-
The court held that quasi-judicial immunity bars damages claims and that most injunctive claims were moot, but reversed the denial of an injunction for immediate jury list placement, remanding for consideration of the constitutional claim.
-
674 F.2d 816·
9th Cir.·
1982-04-15
·cited 16×
The State of Nevada, not having been a party to the district court proceedings, lacks standing to appeal the declaratory judgment and injunction.
-
The court held that a motion to dissolve a mandatory injunction, based on grounds already litigated and without new intervening circumstances, is an improper attempt to evade a court order and cannot be used to retry issues.
-
408 So. 2d 677·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1981-12-30
·cited 16×
The trial court retained jurisdiction to determine and enforce attorneys' fees for the wife's counsel, even after the parties stipulated to dismiss their divorce action.
-
The district court retains jurisdiction to enforce a pre-Title VII injunction against federal employee strikes, and the passage of Title VII did not divest this jurisdiction.
-
407 So. 2d 969·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1981-12-11
·cited 16×
The court addresses the proper venue for a suit against a state agency, holding that the sword-wielder doctrine applies to allow a plaintiff to sue a state agency in the county where the agency's allegedly unlawful actions occurred, rather than requiring suit in the county where
-
The court held that the district court properly issued a preliminary injunction against LTV's tender offer for Grumman based on antitrust grounds under the Clayton Act.
-
A court may only grant relief explicitly provided by Section 13(b) of the FTC Act when its requirements are met, and cannot issue a hold-separate order in such circumstances.
-
The court affirmed the order granting a preliminary injunction and dismissed the cross-appeal.
-
A federal court has jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief against employer retaliation while a Title VII charge is pending before the EEOC, even before a right-to-sue letter has been issued.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
-
The court reviewed whether a trial court could award attorney's fees to a defendant in an embezzlement case from a receivership estate administering assets of the embezzler and his household. The court held that the common fund doctrine did not support such an award because the d
-
636 F.2d 1084·
5th Cir.·
1981-02-13
·cited 16×
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in rejecting the appellants' claims regarding due process, equal protection, breach of contract, impairment of contract, state constitutional violations, and non-compli
-
The court held that consolidating a preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without adequate notice to the parties is improper, and that a federal court has jurisdiction over related state law claims when the federal claim is substantial.
-
623 F.2d 829·
3d Cir.·
1980-04-18
·cited 16×
The court held that the Hyde Amendment substantively modified Title XIX, restricting state obligations to fund abortions, and that Pennsylvania statutes were still inconsistent with the modified law.
-
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Siemens' potential entry into the nuclear medical equipment market.
-
A party cannot appeal an injunction to which they consented.
-
A district court may issue a temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the LMRA, including an interim bargaining order, if there is reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices have occurred that threatened to erode union majority support and impede the election process.
-
The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the proposed acquisition of notes by a competitor likely violated antitrust laws and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the injunction.
-
The court held that district courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin the FDA from carrying out multiple seizure actions under 21 U.S.C.A. § 334, as the seizure action itself is the exclusive forum for resolving disputes.
-
The court held that the appeal could not be properly considered without a clear, explicit judgment from the district court detailing its decision on the motions.
-
362 So. 2d 1350·
Fla.·
1978-09-21
·cited 16×
The Florida Supreme Court overruled its 31-year-old precedent in State ex rel. Paoli v. Baldwin and upheld strict liability rules requiring thoroughbred horse trainers to be absolute insurers against unauthorized drugs and drug-injection devices on racing premises, holding such r