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

• DeNARDO v. Murphy
  781 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights claim was barred by the statute of limitations and affirmed the district court's injunction against relitigating the claim.
• Int'l Olympic Comm. v. SAN Francisco Arts & Athletics
  781 F.2d 733· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-27 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the summary judgment and permanent injunction but reversed and remanded the award of attorneys' fees, finding that the Amateur Sports Act does not require confusion for a violation and that the award of fees requires further determination of exceptional circums
• Hurick v. The Honorable John Lehman
  782 F.2d 984· Fed. Cir.· 1986-01-23 ·cited 14×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that it has jurisdiction over the appeal and that the six-year statute of limitations barred the petitioner's claim challenging his military discharge.
• City OF Daytona Beach Shores v. State
  483 So. 2d 405· Fla.· 1985-12-12 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the validity of beach user fees charged to motor vehicles by local governments, holding that reasonable fees do not violate the public trust doctrine when revenue is used solely for beach maintenance and improvements. The Court resolved a conflict
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Evans Prods. Co.
  775 F.2d 1084· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that preliminary injunctive relief under § 13(b) of the FTC Act is not available for past violations that are not likely to recur, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying ancillary equitable relief.
• Kapco MFG. Co., Inc. v. C & O Enters., Inc.
  773 F.2d 151· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion is only permissible if the underlying order was final, as Rule 60(b) cannot be used to create appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders.
• Channell v. Applied Research, Inc.
  472 So. 2d 1260· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-03 ·cited 14×
  Applied Research sought an injunction against former employees John and Kathy Channell for violating non-compete agreements and misappropriating trade secrets. The Channells appealed the preliminary injunction and contempt fine, while their new employer Modern Research challenged
• In re Martin-Trigona v. Lavien
  763 F.2d 140· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's revised injunction and order concerning court files, finding them to be warranted and in compliance with prior directives.
• Devlin v. THE Phoenix, Inc.
  471 So. 2d 93· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-05-23 ·cited 14×
  The court addressed whether a restaurant lessee had the right to maintain a sign in a common parking area after the property owners changed. The court held that the lessee had only a revocable license to maintain the sign, which was terminated upon the property's conveyance to ne
• Commc'ns Maint., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
  761 F.2d 1202· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that CMI's claims under the Indiana Franchise Act failed because no franchise fee was paid, its jury demand was untimely, and the termination clause was not unconscionable or subject to implied terms.
• Foltz v. U.S. News & World Report
  760 F.2d 1300· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Profit-Sharing Plan was improper and remanded for further consideration, as the Plan's distribution of assets could extinguish a potential ERISA claim, constituting irreparable injury.
• Ware v. Money-Plan Int'l, Inc.
  467 So. 2d 1072· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-04-24 ·cited 14×
  Three insurance agents challenge a non-compete injunction imposed by Money-Plan International, Inc., arguing the restriction violates Florida's restraint of trade statute. The court reversed, holding the agents were independent contractors rather than employees, placing them outs
• Union Mfg. Co., Inc. v. HAN Baek Trading Co., Ltd.
  763 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 14×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the jury instructions on the false designation of origin claim were inadequate because they failed to explicitly require a finding of secondary meaning for the unregistered bottle design, necessitating a new trial.
• Power Test Petroleum Distribs., Inc. v. Calcu GAS, Inc.
  754 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A gasoline franchisor's requirement that franchisees sell only the franchisor's branded gasoline does not constitute an antitrust violation because the trademark and the gasoline are inseparable in the consumer's mind, and thus cannot form an illegal tie-in arrangement.
• The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  747 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had raised serious questions regarding the legality of the defendants' antitrust violations and that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs.
• United States v. Ernst & Whinney
  735 F.2d 1296· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that 26 U.S.C.A. § 7402(a) empowers district courts to enjoin activities interfering with Internal Revenue laws, even without a specific statutory violation by the party enjoined. It also held that while a bond filed under § 7407(c) bars injunctions for 'penalty co
• Hyatt Corp. v. Hyatt Legal Servs. & Joel Hyatt
  736 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
• Commonwealth OF Va. v. Watt
  741 F.2d 37· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that actions challenging the Secretary's cessation orders, which were based on alleged inconsistencies with federal regulations, must be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not the district where the mining operation is located
• Union Carbide Corp. v. UGI Corp.
  731 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court properly asserted personal jurisdiction over Sutton and did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction.
• Hibernia Nat'l Bank in New Orleans v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  733 F.2d 1403· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the FDIC receiver may permit depositors to offset account balances against loan balances, and Hibernia, as a participant in some loans, does not have priority over the FDIC receiver regarding these offsets.
• Hotelerama Assocs., Ltd. v. Bystrom
  449 So. 2d 836· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-02-28 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  The trial court erred by ruling on the merits of the tax assessment dispute when considering a motion for a temporary injunction.
• Inv. Co. Inst. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  728 F.2d 518· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The district court exceeded its authority by issuing an injunction compelling the FDIC to rule on a petition and to halt a third party's conduct, as such actions are committed to agency discretion or prohibited by statute.
• Parker v. Gordon
  442 So. 2d 273· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-11-23 ·cited 14×
  Audrey Oliver Parker appealed the dismissal of her complaint against a law firm and its associates for alleged misconduct in representing her and co-owners in a real property transaction dispute. Although the trial court erred in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under
• In a Cause for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability. Leslie W. Newton v. Shipman
  718 F.2d 959· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a single claimant in a limitation of liability proceeding is entitled to a jury trial on their Jones Act claim, and the district court should dissolve its injunction to permit the separate action.
• Rockwell Int'l Sys., Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.
  719 F.2d 583· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was appropriate to prevent demands on letters of credit where there was a high probability of fraud in the transaction, and the availability of other forums for relief was uncertain.
• Mesa Petroleum Co. v. Cities Serv. Co.
  715 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The Oklahoma Take-Over Bid Act violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because its indirect burden on interstate commerce is excessive in relation to the local interests it serves, mirroring the unconstitutional Illinois statute in Edgar v. MITE Corp.
• Palm Beach-Martin Cnty. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Robert J. Panaro, M.D.
  431 So. 2d 1023· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-04-20 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The Court held that the District Court's order staying proceedings pending state court litigation was a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. CO Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc.
  700 F.2d 1279· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 14×·via Injunction Enforcement
  The district court had jurisdiction to order the return of funds despite a bankruptcy filing, as the order enforced a prior injunction under the police or regulatory exception to the automatic stay, and the appellant violated that injunction by depositing the funds.
• NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Dev. Auth. & Minority Equity Cap. Corp.
  700 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the judgment was appropriate in determining the rights to the cash surrender value of the insurance policies and New York Life's liability to pay it, but remanded for clarification regarding Sterling's consent to the extinguishment of his tort claims.
• James M.P. D'Amico v. Schweiker
  698 F.2d 903· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-03 ·cited 14×
  Administrative law judges lack standing to sue to enjoin an instruction that alters their adjudicative discretion regarding the date of cessation of disability benefits, as they are not the proper parties to challenge such a policy.
• Okla. Telecasters Ass'n v. Crisp
  699 F.2d 490· 10th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's summary dismissal of a similar case (Queensgate) for want of a substantial federal question is binding on this court, and therefore, Oklahoma's laws prohibiting alcoholic beverage advertising do not violate the First Amendment.
• Dotolo v. Schouten
  426 So. 2d 1013· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-01-14 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that injunctive relief is the only adequate remedy to prevent the continuing misappropriation of a trade secret, and irreparable injury may be presumed in such cases.
• The Instrumentalist Co. v. Marine Corps League & the United States Marine Youth Found., Inc.
  694 F.2d 145· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
• Square Liner 360°, Inc. v. Finis Lavell Chisum & Chief Indus., Inc.
  691 F.2d 362· 8th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 14×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court affirmed the validity of the '100 patent but vacated the award of damages and the injunction, remanding for a new trial on damages.
• Ass'n OF Co-Operative Members, Inc. v. Farmland Indus., Inc.
  684 F.2d 1134· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the presence of a third party's registered mark within a composite mark does not automatically defeat the user's common law trademark rights in the composite, and the third party is not a necessary party if it claims no rights in the composite mark.
• Sperry Corp. & Its Sperry Univac Div. v. City OF Minneapolis & Burroughs Corp.
  680 F.2d 1234· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to modify an injunction is appealable and that the district court did not err in determining that the settlement agreement was not a contract within the purview of competitive bidding statutes.
• United States v. AN Article OF Food
  678 F.2d 735· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that DMG, when marketed as a single ingredient, should not be automatically condemned as an adulterated food via the 'food additive' presumption.
• Williams v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. Appeal of James Williams
  681 F.2d 161· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction may be granted based on affidavits and written evidence without a hearing if no relevant factual issues remain unresolved. The court also held that an order compelling document production is not typically reviewable on an interlocutory
• William and Mary Lou Castorr v. Brundage
  674 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 14×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that federal courts should not intervene in child custody disputes, claims were barred by res judicata, and judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment protected state officials and agencies.
• The Trs. OF Hosp. Mortg. Grp. v. Compania Aseguradora Inter-Americana S. A. Panama
  672 F.2d 250· 1st Cir.· 1982-03-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the interlocutory order requiring a bond or payment of taxes is not immediately appealable.
• Davis v. Joyner
  409 So. 2d 1193· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-02-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant an injunction because injunctive relief would have been unjust and unfair given the totality of the circumstances.
• News-Press Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Carlson
  410 So. 2d 546· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-02-05 ·cited 14×
  The News-Press challenged the trial court's refusal to enjoin Lee Memorial Hospital's internal budget committee from meeting in secret. The district court held that the ad hoc budget committee, composed of hospital vice presidents and chief executive officer, constituted a board
• Medtronic v. Catalyst Research Corp.
  664 F.2d 660· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-06 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting CRC from enjoining Medtronic's production of lithium-iodine batteries, finding the balance of equities favored Medtronic, despite a differing preliminary assessment of the likelihood of success on the merits.
• Seashore Club OF Atl. City, Inc. v. Manley Tessler
  405 So. 2d 767· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-11-04 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court reversed a temporary injunction prohibiting fund disbursement because the trial court failed to make findings of fact establishing the required elements for injunctive relief, instead merely assuming the complaint's allegations were true.
• The World Sec. Fund v. Schmidt
  406 So. 2d 511· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-03 ·cited 14×·via Dissolution Of Injunction
  The World Security Fund and its principals appealed the trial court's refusal to dissolve a temporary injunction issued in favor of the Schmidts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the injunction lacked basis in
• United States v. Lebron Harvey
  659 F.2d 62· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the provisions of the VA loan servicing manual are not mandatory and do not create enforceable rights for borrowers to bar or enjoin foreclosure.
• Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified
  525 F. Supp. 186· S.D. Fla.· 1981-10-02 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the State of Florida's actions in threatening arrests and prosecution constituted bad faith harassment, justifying federal injunctive relief despite the Younger v. Harris doctrine, and that the court possessed admiralty jurisdiction over the salvage dispute.
• Louis v. Meissner
  530 F. Supp. 924· S.D. Fla.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court granted a temporary restraining order, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without it, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored the injunction.
• Smith v. Roscoe L. Eggar
  655 F.2d 181· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 14×·via Injunctive Order
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the Commissioner could not rescind the agreement based on the taxpayer's removal of papers from a bank vault, as the agreement was not ambiguous and the removal did not violate its terms.
• Coal. FOR Basic Human Needs v. King
  654 F.2d 838· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 14×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of a TRO, and granted an injunction pending appeal requiring the state to resume AFDC payments, finding a likelihood of success on the statutory claim.