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 held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the proposed intervenors' motion to intervene as untimely, and therefore affirmed that order and dismissed the appeals from other district court orders.
-
The court held that a firm whose sales from a supplier constitute only 0.5% of its total business is unlikely to be considered a 'dealer' under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, and thus is not entitled to a preliminary injunction against a price increase.
-
The appellate court held that the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction must be vacated and remanded because it failed to make sufficient findings of fact as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
-
The denial of a preliminary injunction was based on an incorrect analysis of the likelihood of success on the merits, requiring remand for reconsideration.
-
The court held that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for nine timber sales, and that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that the amendment of an employee drug rule constituted a major dispute under the Railway Labor Act, justifying a status quo injunction, and that the rule had become an implied term of the collective bargaining agreement through long-standing practice.
-
A post-indictment restraining order under RICO is appealable, but the appeal is limited to the facial validity of the order if the defendant fails to pursue a motion to vacate in the district court.
-
The Youngs appealed a mandatory injunction requiring them to replace their residence's flat roof with a peaked roof, as demanded by the Tortoise Island Architectural Control Board. The court reversed, holding that the Board lacked authority to impose a flat roof prohibition absen
-
The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should abstain from deciding the case to allow Illinois state courts to interpret the relevant state statute and rules, which could resolve the constitutional questions.
-
The court held that the lower court's finding of irreparable injury was clearly erroneous, requiring reversal of the preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that the ordinance's specific disposal requirements for fetal remains unconstitutionally burden the right to abortion.
-
The court held that while the employee likely demonstrated a procedural due process violation under Loudermill, he failed to show irreparable harm, thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
-
The court held that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the scope of a state auditor's authority under state law, and that the auditor's claim of a due process violation for being prevented from conducting a more extensive audit fails for lack of a lega
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff raised serious questions regarding the interpretation of his service obligation agreement.
-
The appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the underlying license has been permanently revoked after the appeal was filed.
-
795 F.2d 756·
9th Cir.·
1986-07-25
·cited 12×
The court held that the Shipowners Limitation of Liability Act does not permit a stay of proceedings against the vessel's captain, and the equities do not support an exception.
-
The district court correctly dismissed the complaint because it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Director's denial of an individual asylum application, as such review would permit dilatory tactics contrary to congressional intent.
-
792 F.2d 19·
2d Cir.·
1986-05-27
·cited 12×
The court held that section 810 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 does not provide an implied private right of action for restitution of subsidies paid by the government, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and modification of the injunction against futu
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for the dual lumen IAB device.
-
The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the Secretary's use of "severity regulations" in evaluating disability benefits, finding the regulations likely inconsistent with the Social Security Act.
-
The court held that while ANILCA section 708 precludes judicial review of land use designations in the Tongass Plan EIS, it does not preclude review of the site-specific Alaska Lumber and Pulp EIS regarding the Kadashan road.
-
779 F.2d 683·
D.C. Cir.·
1985-12-13
·cited 12×
The court held that the FDA's settlement agreement, which delayed enforcement proceedings regarding a drug's new drug status, was an exercise of enforcement discretion and thus not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, as established in Heckler v. Cha
-
773 F.2d 487·
2d Cir.·
1985-10-04
·cited 12×
The court held that while a district court can enjoin frivolous filings, the injunction was overbroad and should be modified to require leave of court before filing.
-
775 F.2d 24·
2d Cir.·
1985-09-27
·cited 12×
Congress does not violate due process by enacting a retroactive law and then repealing its retroactive effect, provided the repeal is supported by a rational legislative purpose and rational means.
-
The court held that while state law claims regarding pollution and nuisances are not preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) resolve issues pending before it before a court proceeds.
-
472 So. 2d 544·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1985-07-03
·cited 12×
A landlocked property owner sought a prescriptive easement over adjoining property after the adjoining owner blocked his access road. The court held that because the owner had a statutory way of necessity available to him, he could not simultaneously claim a prescriptive easement
-
The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the promotion of the Constitutional Pure Equity Trust was misleading commercial speech and that injunctive relief was appropriate under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 to prevent recurrence of violations.
-
760 F.2d 1408·
4th Cir.·
1985-05-02
·cited 12×
The court held that Maryland's Public Service Commission Law § 24(e) does not violate the Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause, or Equal Protection Clause, and that the PSC's interpretation of the statute was reasonable.
-
The court held that Monfort has antitrust standing to challenge the acquisition and that the district court properly granted an injunction because the acquisition would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
-
758 F.2d 579·
11th Cir.·
1985-04-19
·cited 12×
The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin tax collection and that the defendants are immune from damages.
-
467 So. 2d 474·
Fla. 5th DCA·
1985-04-18
·cited 12×
The court held that the trial court committed substantial failures to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 in issuing injunctive orders without proper notice, evidence, or bond.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in vacating the permanent injunction because the collective bargaining agreement and new assessment programs rendered the injunction redundant and its purpose fulfilled. Attorneys' fees were also correctly denied as the plaintiff
-
The court held that the district court correctly found no trademark infringement but erred in the scope of the injunction, remanding for revision.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Litton's motion for a preliminary injunction, as Litton failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, or that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor.
-
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction and the entry of final judgment, but only because the appellants failed to raise the issue of improper consolidation of the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits.
-
The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because the plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the antitrust claims.
-
738 F.2d 660·
5th Cir.·
1984-08-13
·cited 12×
The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in affirming the jury's finding of negligent reporting and defamatory falsehoods, asserting the article was substantially truthful and protected by the First Amendment.
-
Williams Island Country Club sought a preliminary injunction to establish an implied easement for a golf cart path across appellees' property that divides the thirteenth and fourteenth holes of its golf course. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the injunction, holdin
-
452 So. 2d 1131·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1984-07-18
·cited 12×
The trial court erred by denying the motion to dissolve the lis pendens without requiring the respondents to post an indemnity bond, as the action was not founded on a duly recorded instrument.
-
The City of St. Petersburg appeals a trial court judgment requiring it to repair the roof of leased premises and provide dock space to tenant Competition Sails, Inc. The appellate court reverses the roof repair requirement but affirms the dock space obligation, holding that absen
-
732 F.2d 562·
7th Cir.·
1984-03-02
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the appellant's arguments challenging it were frivolous.
-
Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and First Amendment principles require a union to publish a member's paid advertisement opposing a contract, even if it creates internal dissent, when the union has opened its publication to commercial advertise
-
The Palauan High Court, as a court of a foreign country, is not subject to restraining orders issued by United States District Courts in limitation proceedings.
-
The court held that the district court's dismissal was proper because res judicata, based on the California Supreme Court's denial of review, barred Southern Pacific's preemption claim.
-
Hernandez challenged a trial court's dismissal of his preliminary injunction motion and the defendant's motion to dismiss in a replevin action seeking return of seized photographic materials. The court reversed because the trial court denied him due process by failing to provide
-
437 So. 2d 200·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1983-09-13
·cited 12×
Miami Springs enacted an ordinance prohibiting liquor sales when sex-related business activities occur on licensed premises. The court upheld the ordinance as a valid police power exercise, rejecting claims that it constituted a taking of property, infringed free expression, was
-
The court held that the district court's order, which clarified a preliminary injunction by making its sales prohibition absolute, constituted a modification and was therefore appealable. The modification was justified by the defendants' post-injunction sales activities.
-
The court held that the Secretary violated 42 U.S.C. § 425(b) by failing to consider it when terminating disability benefits for individuals in vocational rehabilitation programs. The court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
-
An order staying state court proceedings after removal is not an appealable interlocutory injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because removal automatically effects a stay and the order is merely declaratory of existing law.
-
A party is not considered a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 solely because they obtained an injunction pending appeal based on a substantial case and balance of equities, without a determination of the merits.