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

• Bd. OF Regents OF the State OF Fla. v. Petr Taborsky
  648 So. 2d 748· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-09-14 ·cited 10×
  The Board of Regents of the University of South Florida appealed a trial court's denial of injunctive relief and summary judgment in a civil action against Petr Taborsky, who had been criminally convicted of stealing proprietary research notebooks containing trade secrets. The co
• Richardson v. Celveta Lewis
  639 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-07-20 ·cited 10×·via Injunction For Protection
  The court held that prosecution for indirect criminal contempt after conviction for armed trespass and aggravated battery does not violate double jeopardy because the offenses contain different elements.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Metals Exch. Corp.
  991 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-08 ·cited 10×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment but vacated the disgorgement orders, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of disgorgement based on ill-gotten gains.
• Jordan v. Booth Gardner
  986 F.2d 1521· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prison policy allowing cross-gender searches did not violate the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment analysis should not employ a balancing test as suggested by a concurring opinion.
• Lawhon v. Mason
  611 So. 2d 1367· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-01-22 ·cited 10×
  Joan Lawhon, a defendant in an automobile negligence action, challenged a prejudgment order prohibiting her from transferring assets without notice to the plaintiffs. The Florida appellate court granted her petition for certiorari, finding the trial court lacked authority to issu
• United States v. Gibbons
  968 F.2d 639· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts for mail fraud, wire fraud, criminal contempt, and currency structuring, and that the supplemental jury instruction was proper.
• Scattergood v. Perelman
  945 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot because the merger has occurred, and that the plaintiffs' federal securities claims based on a misleading proxy statement and pre-merger misrepresentations in a freeze-out merger are barred by the
• Scarbrough v. Meeks
  582 So. 2d 95· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-26 ·cited 10×·via Permanent Injunction
  John Scarbrough appeals a permanent injunction entered against him by the trial court, claiming violation of due process rights and improper denial of his motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed that the complaint states a cause of action for injunctive relief but reverse
• JIM Beam Brands Co. v. Beamish & Crawford Ltd.
  937 F.2d 729· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that collateral estoppel was improperly applied because the issue of likelihood of confusion in a trademark cancellation proceeding differs from that in an infringement action, as the former focuses on abstract marks while the latter requires consideration of marks
• Trustees OF THE Chicago Truck Drivers v. Cent. Transp., Inc.
  935 F.2d 114· 7th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 10×
  Orders to make interim withdrawal liability payments under MPPAA are final decisions appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and district courts retain jurisdiction to register judgments during an appeal.
• Mitch Paulsen v. Cnty. OF Nassau
  925 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-04 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Nassau County Veterans Memorial Coliseum's sidewalk and mall areas constitute a public forum by government designation, and a complete ban on noncommercial leafletting is an impermissible abridgement of expression.
• Barbano v. Madison Cnty.
  922 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 10×·via Mandatory Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the Board of Supervisors guilty of sex discrimination, as the record did not support claims of discriminatory experience assessment or lack of tact by the plaintiff.
• Town OF W. Hartford v. Operation Rescue
  915 F.2d 92· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's allegation of property deprivation due to extortion was not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.
• TMF Tool Co., Inc. v. Hans Muller
  913 F.2d 1185· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that sanctions against TMF for improper service of process were an abuse of discretion because the service was not contrary to existing circuit law, and sanctions against Muller for his fee petitions were also an abuse of discretion as his amended petition addresse
• W. Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Rose ART Indus., Inc.
  910 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source of the defendant's product, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Reuters Ltd. v. United Press Int'l, Inc.
  903 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as UPI demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm and sufficiently serious questions going to the merits with a favorable balance of hardships.
• B.B. McCORMICK & Sons, Inc. v. The City OF Jacksonville
  559 So. 2d 252· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-03-20 ·cited 10×
  Appellants challenged the City of Jacksonville's decision to construct a sanitary landfill in a wetlands area, arguing it violated the city's comprehensive plan. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the injunction, holding that competent substan
• Nordin v. Nutri/System, Inc.
  897 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the district court's order enjoining arbitration and denying the motion to compel arbitration, but not the order denying the venue transfer. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no agreement to arbitrate the
• Abernathy v. Southern California Edison
  885 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 10×
  Orders granting stays pending arbitration or compelling arbitration are not ordinarily appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as injunctions, even if amended to expedite the process, absent extraordinary circumstances of irreparable harm.
• Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Signalmen
  882 F.2d 778· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a dispute over whether unions could engage in a sympathy strike was a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending arbitration.
• Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc.
  878 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court's preliminary injunction order was not sufficiently explained to allow for appellate review, requiring a remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the injunction would remain in place pending the supplementary opinion.
• In re Chateaugay Corp. v. Chateaugay Corp.
  880 F.2d 1509· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The denial of a motion for relief from the automatic stay, even with provisions for interim relief and future reconsideration, is a final and appealable order.
• RON Matusalem & Matusa OF Fla., Inc. v. RON Matusalem, Inc.
  872 F.2d 1547· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the defendant's actions did not constitute a material breach of the sub-franchise agreement, and thus the plaintiff's termination of the agreement was invalid.
• Anderson v. Stephens
  875 F.2d 76· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that checks deposited after a freeze order was issued should be returned to the originating investors, not included in a pro rata distribution to all investors.
• Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole
  870 F.2d 1419· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-20 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Congress's enactment of Section 114, mandating the H-3 highway construction notwithstanding Section 4(f) requirements, was constitutional and rendered the remaining environmental challenges moot, thus affirming the dismissal of the complaint and the lifting of
• Leonard v. Floretta McKENZIE
  869 F.2d 1558· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Prospect Learning Center was an appropriate educational placement for Brandon and that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Pelfresne v. Vill. OF Williams BAY
  865 F.2d 877· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits and would not suffer irreparable harm, while deferring the Anti-Injunction Act issue for further factfinding.
• Dumas v. Stefan Gommerman
  865 F.2d 1093· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the 1976 Copyright Act distinguishes between works prepared by employees and commissioned works, and that the 'work for hire' doctrine under § 101(1) applies only to formal employees, not independent contractors, regardless of the level of supervision.
• DeWayne Moore v. Thieret
  862 F.2d 148· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the plaintiff has been transferred to another prison and there is no indication he is likely to be returned to the original prison.
• Ramirez v. Rivera-Dueno
  861 F.2d 328· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 1984 agreement was not a settlement agreement or consent decree, and therefore the district court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a trial.
• Coral Gables Invs., Inc. v. The Graham Cos.
  528 So. 2d 989· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-07-26 ·cited 10×·via Permanent Injunction
  Coral Gables Investments appeals an injunction enforcing a restrictive covenant that prohibits covering apartment building roofs with fiberglass shingles in the Miami Lakes subdivision. The court affirmed, holding that the covenant's requirement for architectural committee approv
• Lone Star Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am. & its Local Union 9313
  851 F.2d 1239· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the 'Leasing' clause of the 1974 NBCWA was not an object of the Union's strike and that Lone Star's antitrust claims lacked standing.
• In re Deist Forest Prods., Inc.
  850 F.2d 340· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 10×·via Request For Injunction
  The court held that the debtor (Forest Products) lacked standing to seek an injunction against the bank's suit against the guarantors because the debtor sought relief solely for the benefit of the guarantors, not for itself.
• Taylor v. United States
  848 F.2d 715· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Balisong knives, due to their design and intended use as described by the importer, fall within the statutory definition of switchblade knives, and the Customs Service's interpretation was rational and entitled to deference.
• Moss v. Inverness Highlands S. & W. Civic Ass'n, Inc.
  521 So. 2d 359· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-03-10 ·cited 10×
  Appellant was enjoined from renting rooms in her single-family home to elderly residents under an adult congregate living facility arrangement. The court reversed the injunction, holding that the restrictive covenant limiting use to "residential purposes only" was not violated me
• Stern v. Honorable Robert N.C. NIX, Jr.
  840 F.2d 208· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 10×
  The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the appellant was impermissibly seeking to review and reverse a final judgment of a state court in a judicial proceeding.
• Cook v. Voth
  522 So. 2d 899· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-02-26 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  In a family law appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that prevented the former wife from relocating with the parties' minor child from Hillsborough County to Collier County. The court held th
• Classic Components Supply, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc.
  841 F.2d 163· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-25 ·cited 10×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  The court denied the application for an injunction pending appeal because the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and the motion was frivolous.
• Bean v. Indep. Am. Sav. Ass'n
  838 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-11 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted pending appeal to prevent foreclosure, as the appellant is likely to succeed on the merits of their jurisdictional argument.
• Fengler v. Numismatic Americana, Inc.
  832 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction cannot be issued without an evidentiary hearing when essential facts are in dispute, and must be supported by findings of fact.
• Ga. Power Co. v. Baker
  830 F.2d 163· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-19 ·cited 10×·via Action For Injunction
  A hydroelectric dam licensee can prohibit seaplane operations on its reservoir if the prohibition is a reasonable exercise of its state law property rights and is consistent with its federal license obligations to allow reasonable public access.
• United States v. Lemaire
  826 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 10×·via Suit For Injunction
  The court held that 'final judgment' under 12 U.S.C. § 91 means a judgment no longer subject to appeal, not merely a trial court's judgment on the merits.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  826 F.2d 1141· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 10×·via Status Quo Injunction
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a status quo injunction in a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, absent exigent circumstances.
• Lowrie v. United States
  824 F.2d 827· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 10×·via Request For Injunction
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit against the IRS for return of records when the purpose was to avoid tax liability, and reversed the judgment against the FBI as they no longer possessed the records.
• Leaman v. Ohio Dep't OF Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities
  825 F.2d 946· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's voluntary election to sue in the Ohio Court of Claims constituted a waiver of her federal claims against state employees, as the Ohio statute provided a reasonable alternative forum and remedy.
• Inverness Corp. v. Whitehall Labs. & Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  819 F.2d 48· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its preliminary injunction, requiring a remand for further explanation.
• Badgley v. Santacroce
  815 F.2d 888· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-10 ·cited 10×·via Interlocutory Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to set forth adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its order allowing a temporary increase in the prison population cap.
• T.K. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Herman
  505 So. 2d 484· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-03-16 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  T.K. Communications (WSHE) appeals the denial of a temporary injunction against former disc jockeys who breached a non-compete covenant by accepting employment at a competing radio station within the restricted period. The court reverses, holding that the employees violated the n
• Collins v. Cnty. OF Kendall
  807 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support an inference of bad faith prosecution, thus the district court properly abstained under the Younger doctrine.
• Am. Cyanamid Corp. v. Connaught Labs., Inc.
  800 F.2d 306· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the trademark HibVAX does not infringe on HIB-IMUNE because the generic term 'Hib' cannot be exclusively appropriated and the suffixes 'VAX' and 'IMUNE' are dissimilar in sound and appearance, lacking likelihood of confusion.