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

• Polaroid Corp. v. Disney
  862 F.2d 987· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Polaroid has standing to assert violations of the All-Holders Rule, a regulation promulgated under the Williams Act, and that the tender offer likely violates this rule.
• Davis v. Hon. Thomas C. Crush
  862 F.2d 84· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions because the plaintiffs' civil rights complaint did not necessarily reflect a lack of reasonable inquiry into the facts or law.
• Montero v. Meyer
  861 F.2d 603· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court did not reach the merits of the appeal due to ripeness and mootness concerns, but agreed the preliminary injunction was correctly lifted.
• Georgianna Johnson v. KAY
  860 F.2d 529· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-25 ·cited 8×·via Prohibitory Injunction
  The court held that allegations of a coordinated scheme to suppress dissent and monopolize communication within a union, even if involving officers, can establish federal jurisdiction under the LMRDA, justifying pendent jurisdiction over related state law claims. The case was not
• Tribal Vill. OF Akutan v. Hodel
  869 F.2d 1185· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-05 ·cited 8×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  The court held that the Secretary's rejection of the Governor's recommendations was not arbitrary or capricious, the environmental impact statement adequately complied with NEPA, and the Secretary satisfied ESA requirements by taking reasonably adequate steps to protect endangere
• Soffer v. Leopold
  531 So. 2d 201· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-08-30 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted without notice to the defendants, violating procedural rules.
• Kowalski v. Chicago Tribune Co.
  854 F.2d 168· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the distributors were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they had an adequate remedy at law through arbitration and had waived their right to equitable relief.
• Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n v. The City OF Galveston
  849 F.2d 145· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 8×·via Status Quo Injunction
  The Staggers Act does not implicitly repeal the Railway Labor Act, and a court may issue an injunction to compel bargaining under the RLA even after the ICC has approved a transaction without imposing labor protective conditions.
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  849 F.2d 1481· D.C. Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the March order constituted a new or modified injunction, not merely a contempt finding for violating the July injunction, and thus vacated the contempt judgment.
• Gloucester Marine Railways Corp. v. Charles Parisi, Inc.
  848 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The Anti-Injunction Act barred the federal district court from issuing an injunction or declaratory judgment that would stay or interfere with the enforcement of a state court judgment, even if the relief sought was framed as affecting the rights of insurers.
• Craig v. Lynaugh
  846 F.2d 11· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 8×
  A motion to vacate a judgment, even if labeled under Rule 60(b), is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion if it challenges the judgment's correctness and is filed within 10 days. Such a motion, if timely, nullifies a previously filed notice of appeal, requiring a new notice after the mo
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  847 F.2d 1014· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 8×·via Injunction Pending Appeal
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing an injunction to preserve the jurisdiction of the system board of adjustment, even after an appeal was filed, especially when parties consented to treat the matter as a new action.
• Frank's GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  847 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improvidently granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and the district court failed to require a bond as mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c).
• Jarvis Christian Coll. v. Exxon Corp.
  845 F.2d 523· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 was valid and not an abuse of discretion, consolidating litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler).
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Antonio
  843 F.2d 1311· 10th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the district court had the authority under Colorado law to freeze assets unrelated to the alleged illegal conduct and that the FDIC demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Phototron Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  842 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-28 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A competitor seeking a preliminary injunction against a merger must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of suffering an antitrust injury, which requires proof of predatory behavior, not just allegations of unprofitability or market changes.
• Formax, Inc. v. Hostert
  841 F.2d 388· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-16 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of misappropriated manufacturing prints was an abuse of discretion.
• Wiemerslage v. Grieco
  838 F.2d 899· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 8×
  The Internal Revenue Code's antidisclosure provision, 26 U.S.C. § 6103(n), permits the IRS to contract out tax return processing functions to private entities when necessary for tax administration.
• HAY v. Waldron
  834 F.2d 481· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-22 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the denial of injunctive relief regarding the strip search policy was proper, but the denial concerning retaliatory or discriminatory application of policies must be reversed and remanded.
• Giron v. Heriberto Acevedo Ruiz
  834 F.2d 238· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction for reinstatement, finding that the plaintiff had made the necessary showings for such relief.
• Robert Reno, M.D. v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc.
  516 So. 2d 63· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-12-02 ·cited 8×
  A physician sued a hospital for denying him access to radiology facilities based on an exclusive contract. The trial court granted the hospital's motion for judgment on the pleadings, treating the plaintiff's failure to reply to an affirmative defense as an admission of its alleg
• Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Martin
  516 So. 2d 970· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-10-27 ·cited 8×
  Orkin appeals a trial court's temporary injunction that limited a non-compete covenant to only the territory Martin had personally worked, rather than the entire Dade County area agreed upon in the employment contract. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court im
• Hankins v. Temple Univ. (Health Scis. Center) & Tourtellotte
  829 F.2d 437· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  Summary judgment for the university was proper because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding her claims of race and sex discrimination or due process violations.
• Seafarers Int'l Union OF N. Am. v. Nat'l Marine Servs., Inc.
  820 F.2d 148· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The duty to arbitrate disputes under a collective bargaining agreement survives the agreement's expiration, and such disputes are arbitrable unless expressly excluded.
• N.M. Ex rel. Energy & Minerals Dep't v. U.S. Dep't OF the Interior
  820 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the Tribe's counterclaim without considering transfer, and that the dismissal of the complaint was proper as the Tribe was not prejudiced. The court vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and dis
• The Republic OF the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos
  818 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the preliminary injunction because the complaint failed to allege harm to the United States economy, which is required for RICO claims.
• Sec. Mgmt. Corp. v. Markham
  516 So. 2d 959· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-06-03 ·cited 8×
  Security Management Corp. and related appellants challenged a Broward County tax assessment that increased their vacant beachfront property's assessed value from $6.6 million to $47.4 million in 1983. The Fourth District reversed the assessment, holding that the county improperly
• Belsky v. First Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  818 F.2d 661· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Executive Compensation Plan was not a 'funded' plan under ERISA because the insurance policy was treated as a general asset of the bank, not a separate res for the employee's benefit.
• W. AIR Lines, Inc. v. Port Auth. OF NEW York & NEW Jersey
  817 F.2d 222· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a Supremacy Clause challenge to a local airport regulation based on federal preemption is permissible even if the federal statute does not provide an implied private right of action for enforcement. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding th
• Oral-B Labs., Inc. v. Mi-Lor Corp.
  810 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Mi-Lor's packaging was confusingly similar to Oral-B's trade dress, affirming contempt findings for certain packages but reversing the denial of an accounting for profits from those contemptuous sales. The modified injunction prohibiting all references to Oral
• Andreas Proimos v. Fair Auto. Repair, Inc.
  808 F.2d 1273· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of injunctive relief without proper notice or consent for consolidation of the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, and that the denial
• Amoco OIL Co. v. Rainbow Snow, Inc.
  809 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1987-01-09 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
• Commonwealth OF Pa. & Raymond Williams v. Local Union 542
  807 F.2d 330· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 8×·via Injunctive Decree
  A race-conscious remedy must be narrowly tailored to the violations it seeks to correct and must respect the legitimate interests of all affected individuals.
• John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A Of the United Food & Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO
  804 F.2d 457· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin a strike that is a sympathy strike in support of another union's dispute, even if a grievance related to the employer's disciplinary action for the strike is pending.
• Benjamin v. Malcolm
  803 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal courts from issuing injunctive relief against state officials when necessary to remedy violations of federal constitutional rights, even if state law is also implicated.
• Stanislav Kopunec v. Nelson
  801 F.2d 1226· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Mr. Kopunec was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and affirmed the district court's award of fees and costs, finding no abuse of discretion in the amount awarded.
• In re Martin-Trigona
  795 F.2d 9· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 8×·via Permanent Injunction
  The court held that it has the inherent power to impose monetary sanctions and a permanent injunction on a pro se litigant whose numerous filings are frivolous and vexatious, despite the absence of opposing parties to trigger Rule 38 or Rule 11 sanctions.
• Fields v. Rockdale Cnty. Ga.
  785 F.2d 1558· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing the case, remanding it to state court to resolve land use and zoning issues.
• McClelland v. Massinga
  786 F.2d 1205· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Maryland's Tax Refund Interception Program (TRIP) does not violate due process by failing to provide a pre-intercept hearing for obligated parents or notice to non-obligated spouses who did not contribute to the tax payments.
• Bloodgood v. Garraghty
  783 F.2d 470· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a parole proceeding is not a proper forum to contest the legal sufficiency of prior convictions, and that the parole and classification boards did not rely on the allegedly uncounseled convictions in their decisions.
• Am. Television & Commc'ns Corp. v. Floken, Ltd.
  629 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a cable television distributor has standing under 47 U.S.C. § 605 to sue hotels that intercept and retransmit subscription programming signals intended for the distributor, as this constitutes an injury redressable by the court.
• Stertz v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  783 F.2d 1064· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 8×·via Overbroad Injunction
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was not overbroad and that the Department of Energy was not entitled to interest on the bond posted by Gulf Oil.
• James Luterbach Constr. Co., Inc. v. Valdas V. Adamkus
  781 F.2d 599· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was moot because the construction project was substantially completed and the plaintiff had not sought damages in the district court.
• Sours v. Norris
  782 F.2d 106· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary relief but remanded the denial of appointed counsel for further consideration.
• Arnaldo Jimenez-Fuentes v. Hon. Jaime Torres Gaztambide
  807 F.2d 230· 1st Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that demotions based on political affiliation likely violate First Amendment rights, even if the positions are classified as 'confidential' under Puerto Rico law.
• Garland Coal & Mining Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  778 F.2d 1297· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that post-expiration grievances are not arbitrable under the contract, but pre-expiration grievances remain arbitrable. The court also reversed the dismissal of the Union's counterclaims and third-party complaint.
• COX v. Fla. Mobile Leasing, Inc.
  478 So. 2d 1200· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-12-04 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a full hearing is necessary before a preliminary injunction can be granted, and findings from a preliminary injunction hearing are not binding on the merits.
• Tandy Brands, Inc. v. Master Mktg. Ass'n, Inc.
  481 So. 2d 925· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-11-20 ·cited 8×
  Tandy Brands appealed two orders: one denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and another enjoining Sun Bank from honoring an irrevocable letter of credit. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss but reversed the injunction, holding that breach of co
• Clinard v. Clinard
  478 So. 2d 98· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-11-01 ·cited 8×
  In this post-divorce modification case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's order restricting the former wife from removing the parties' child from Highlands County without permission, but reversed and remanded the attorney's fee award because the trial
• Lasater v. Leathers
  475 So. 2d 1329· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-09-26 ·cited 8×
  A counterclaim against a decedent's estate is barred if a claim was not filed within the statutory time period, even if litigation was pending at the time of death.