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

• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Warren
  583 F.2d 115· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 16×·via Modification Of Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving a permanent injunction because the original violation was technical, there was little likelihood of recurrence, and the injunction caused undue hardship due to changed circumstances and regulations.
• Complaint of Mucho K, Inc. v. Mucho K, Inc.
  578 F.2d 1156· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-25 ·cited 16×
  In a single claim limitation of liability action, a district court must allow claimants to pursue separate actions, subject to the admiralty court's exclusive control over the limitation fund.
• Modern Controls, Inc. v. Andreadakis
  578 F.2d 1264· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-20 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the covenant not to compete was likely enforceable, supported by independent consideration and the potential for irreparable harm.
• Garzaro v. The Univ. OF Puerto RICO
  575 F.2d 335· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the interlocutory injunction was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed it, deferring full review of the merits to an appeal from the final judgment.
• Jacksonville Mar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  571 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 16×·via Boys Markets Injunction
  The employer must allege and prove willingness to arbitrate and resort to contractual arbitration machinery as a prerequisite to a Boys Markets injunction.
• ELI Lilly & Co. v. Staats
  574 F.2d 904· 7th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Comptroller General's request for records was authorized by statute and contract, even if part of a broader research study, as long as a legitimate purpose existed and confidential information was protected.
• United States v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. OF LOS Angeles & Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc.
  575 F.2d 222· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-28 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  Federal district courts are not legally precluded from ordering rescission of acquisitions found to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and the preliminary injunction was within the district court's discretion.
• Plekowski v. Ralston-Purina Co.
  557 F.2d 1218· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that mandamus is an inappropriate remedy for the alleged errors, and the denial of class certification is appealable in the ordinary course after final judgment.
• Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc. v. Earnie Shavers
  562 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The district court erred in enjoining Top Rank from seeking injunctive relief in state courts, as a consent judgment does not bind non-parties and preliminary injunctions are interlocutory.
• Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Richman
  345 So. 2d 851· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-05-10 ·cited 16×·via Mandatory Injunction
  A condominium association appealed a judgment requiring it to enforce bylaws against unit owners who modified their terrace railings without prior written approval. The court affirmed, finding the association was estopped from enforcing the bylaws because it had previously grante
• Turco v. The Monroe Cnty. BAR Ass'n
  554 F.2d 515· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant's federal due process and equal protection claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel because they had been raised and decided in state courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Warshawsky & Co. v. Arcata Nat'l Corp. & Arcata Graphics Corp.
  552 F.2d 1257· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by vacating an injunction based on extra-record impressions rather than objective record facts, and that the California action constituted a compulsory counterclaim.
• Herzog & Straus v. GRT Corp.
  553 F.2d 789· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-14 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a sua sponte grant of summary judgment was improper without adequate notice and opportunity for the non-moving party to present its case.
• City OF Hallandale & Richard C. Fox v. Inglima
  346 So. 2d 84· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-04-07 ·cited 16×
  Two consolidated appeals challenging the trial court's injunctive orders requiring reinstatement of dismissed police officers. The appellate court reversed both injunctive orders, finding they violated procedural requirements for temporary injunctions (lack of bond, premature res
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Universal Major Indus. Corp.
  546 F.2d 1044· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 16×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court affirmed the permanent injunction, holding that an attorney can be liable for aiding and abetting violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on negligence, and that the integrated offering concept is not a prerequisite for such a claim.
• Blaylock v. Cheker OIL Co.
  547 F.2d 962· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-02 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in including paragraph (d) of the preliminary injunction, which went beyond restoring the status quo and was based on an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of success under the Robinson-Patman Act. Consequently, the contempt order
• Arlington OIL Mills, Inc. v. Knebel
  543 F.2d 1092· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the July 6 announcement of peanut price support differentials was procedurally defective under the APA, but the district court erred in mandating implementation of the March 19 announcement, which should have been remanded to the Secretary.
• Rutherford v. United States & David Mathews
  542 F.2d 1137· 10th Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
• Dep't OF Revenue v. Crisp
  337 So. 2d 404· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-09-15 ·cited 16×
  The court reversed the denial of the Department of Revenue's motion to dismiss for improper venue, finding that the Crisps' suit against the state should have been filed in the county of the Department's headquarters, not where the tax was assessed.
• In re the Warden OF the Wis. State Prison v. Inspector John Zajackowski
  541 F.2d 177· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-03 ·cited 16×
  A state prisoner does not have a fundamental right to attend the trial of a civil action unrelated to his confinement, but the state's refusal to transport prisoners to federal court on the same basis as state court constitutes a denial of equal protection.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Food Town Stores, Inc.
  539 F.2d 1339· 4th Cir.· 1976-08-13 ·cited 16×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  The court held that the denial of a temporary restraining order under § 13(b) of the FTC Act is an appealable order, and granted an injunction pending appeal because the FTC demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success in proving the merger would violate antitrust laws.
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co.
  545 F.2d 1050· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-28 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  Section 16 of the Clayton Act is an "expressly authorized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, allowing federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings when necessary to protect federal antitrust claims.
• Catrone v. Mass. State Racing Comm'n
  535 F.2d 669· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-18 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding the federal constitutional claims until state courts could resolve the unresolved state law question regarding the plaintiff's right to access the track.
• Wilkinson v. Manpower, Inc.
  531 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 16×·via Action For Injunction
  A restrictive covenant in a franchise agreement, even if not a statutory exception in Florida, is enforceable if it is reasonable under the governing law chosen by the parties (Wisconsin) and not contrary to Florida's fundamental public policy.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sloan
  535 F.2d 679· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the appeal, finding most of the orders non-appealable interlocutory decisions.
• Holiday INN v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
  534 F.2d 312· C.C.P.A.· 1976-05-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prior court determination of rights to use similar marks, even with a likelihood of confusion, can support the issuance of a restricted registration under § 2(d) of the Trademark Act, and that incontestable registration rights are subject to prior acquired r
• Atl. Richfield Co. v. Zarb
  532 F.2d 1363· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 16×
  The FEA Remedial Order was invalid because the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act did not grant the FEA authority to regulate ARCO's service station property or recreate expired supplier/purchaser relationships.
• Alton J. Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co. Inc.
  528 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-11 ·cited 16×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the 50%-50% hiring practice of racially segregated locals constitutes an unlawful employment practice under Title VII because it tends to deprive individuals of employment opportunities. The court reversed the denial of a permanent injunction against the conti
• Laclede GAS Co. v. Amoco OIL Co.
  522 F.2d 33· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-10 ·cited 16×·via Mandatory Injunction
  A contract is not invalid for lack of mutuality simply because one party has a right to cancel while the other does not, provided the cancellation right is not arbitrary. Specific performance may be granted for personalty if the remedy at law is inadequate.
• Dep't OF Revenue v. Arvida Corp.
  315 So. 2d 235· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-07-02 ·cited 16×
  The Department of Revenue appeals a trial court's determination that venue was proper in a county other than Leon County for a suit by Arvida Corporation challenging a tax warrant and execution for allegedly past-due intangible taxes. The court affirmed, holding that when the Dep
• The Celotex Corp. v. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, Afl-Cio
  516 F.2d 242· 3d Cir.· 1975-05-12 ·cited 16×·via Boys Markets Injunction
  The court held that procedural deficiencies in issuing a temporary restraining order do not automatically entitle a party to damages under the Norris-LaGuardia Act if those deficiencies caused no actual harm or expense.
• Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local Union NO. 1784
  514 F.2d 763· 6th Cir.· 1975-04-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the miners were denied due process because they did not receive adequate notice of the contempt proceedings, and the evidence was insufficient to support the contempt findings.
• Bjorn Jensen v. The Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv. (Noaa)
  512 F.2d 1189· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because presidential approval of international commission regulations is not reviewable under the APA and the delegation of power claim was nonjusticiable.
• Belcher v. Irwin Edward Schilling
  309 So. 2d 32· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-02-25 ·cited 16×
  In this shareholders' derivative action, the Florida District Court of Appeal held that minority shareholders who did not personally give proxies have standing to challenge allegedly fraudulent proxy solicitations, and that a derivative action is properly maintainable when the bo
• Garrett Wounded Head and Bernadine Nichols v. Tribal Council OF the Oglala Sioux Tribe OF the Pine Ridge Reservation & the Solicitor of the United States Dep't of Interior
  507 F.2d 1079· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-03 ·cited 16×·via Request For Injunction
  The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Indian Civil Rights Act's equal protection clause do not apply to internal tribal elections, leaving voting age determination to the tribe's discretion.
• Caramico v. The Sec'y OF THE Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  509 F.2d 694· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's order, emphasizing the need for essential fairness in administrative actions concerning tenant rights.
• Ellicott Mach. Corp. v. Modern Welding Co.
  502 F.2d 178· 4th Cir.· 1974-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an injunction improperly allowed an appeal of an otherwise unappealable venue decision, violating the finality rule.
• Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. v. Kearsley
  299 So. 2d 75· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-07-30 ·cited 16×
  Orange Blossom Hills sought to enjoin Kearsley from interfering with their use of an alleged prescriptive easement across Kearsley's property in Marion County. The trial court found that plaintiffs and their predecessors had acquired a prescriptive easement through more than sixt
• Rodriguez v. Swank
  496 F.2d 1110· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-09 ·cited 16×·via Injunction Enforcement
  A federal court's civil contempt order imposing monetary sanctions for non-compliance with a prospective injunction requiring timely processing of AFDC applications is permissible under the Eleventh Amendment.
• Lecci v. Cahn
  493 F.2d 826· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-25 ·cited 16×·via Action For Injunction
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment because the action was moot and the plaintiff lacked standing, and because the plaintiff had elected to forgo federal review by litigating in state court.
• Jerome v. Viviano Food Co., Inc.
  489 F.2d 965· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-10 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A plaintiff cannot file suit in federal court under Title VII until administrative remedies have been exhausted and the EEOC has issued a right-to-sue letter.
• United States Servicemen's Fund v. Eastland
  488 F.2d 1252· D.C. Cir.· 1973-08-30 ·cited 16×·via Action For Injunction
  The court held that the Senate Subcommittee's subpoena for financial records of the USSF was a valid exercise of investigative power, not an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights.
• Save Sand KEY, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.
  281 So. 2d 572· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-07-19 ·cited 16×
  Save Sand Key, Inc., a nonprofit environmental organization, sued to protect public prescriptive rights to a soft sand beach area on Sand Key, Florida. The trial court dismissed the organization for lack of standing, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the restrictive
• Mapp v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Chattanooga
  477 F.2d 851· 6th Cir.· 1973-04-30 ·cited 16×·via Injunctive Decree
  The court affirmed the District Court's judgments in the school desegregation case.
• Retail Clerks Union v. Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n
  479 F.2d 54· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a district court has discretion to determine if an emergency exists justifying trusteeship imposition and acted within its discretion by staying the trusteeship pending a hearing.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. ex rel. J. Shane Creamer v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  469 F.2d 1387· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Commonwealth failed to make a strong showing of prevailing on the merits and suffering irreparable injury, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• N. Avondale Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth.
  464 F.2d 486· 6th Cir.· 1972-07-20 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to show probable success on the merits and the housing project was substantially complete.
• Horne Bros., Inc. v. Laird
  463 F.2d 1268· D.C. Cir.· 1972-05-17 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A contractor's suspension for over one month without an opportunity to be heard or rebut charges violates fundamental fairness, but rejection of a bid within one month of suspension is permissible.
• Parade Publ'ns, Inc. v. Philadelphia Mailers Union NO. 14
  459 F.2d 369· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-01 ·cited 16×·via Boys Markets Injunction
  A district court cannot enjoin a strike without first determining that the strike is over a grievance which both parties are contractually bound to arbitrate.
• Reed v. The Bd. OF Election Comm'rs OF the City OF Cambridge
  459 F.2d 121· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-01 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The appeal from the denial of provisional registration is moot because the district court did not reach the merits of the controversy.