Injunctive Relief

8,020 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Zuckerman v. Prof'l Writers OF Fla., Inc.
  398 So. 2d 870· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-04-29 ·cited 36×
  The appellate court affirmed a trial court's issuance of a temporary restraining order and prejudgment writs of replevin against former employees who allegedly removed corporate records from their employer. The court held that circumstantial evidence and testimony at the motion-t
• Cullen v. Margiotta
  618 F.2d 226· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court's certification of its order as a final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) was improper, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Chamber OF Commerce OF the United States OF Am. v. United States Dep't of Energy
  627 F.2d 289· D.C. Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the case moot due to the completion of challenged proceedings and the attenuated nature of the controversy, making discretionary relief inappropriate.
• Bakersfield City Sch. Dist. OF Kern Cnty. v. Boyer
  610 F.2d 621· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-20 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that the protective order was adequate.
• Marshall v. Kirkland
  602 F.2d 1282· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the school district successfully rebutted the presumption of racial discrimination for individual relief and did not err in finding no prima facie case of sex discrimination within the limitations period.
• Dresser Indus., Inc. v. United States
  596 F.2d 1231· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the issues raised by Dresser were not ripe for judicial review because the agency actions were not final and there was no immediate hardship. Furthermore, any alleged contract with the SEC to limit DOJ investigations was unenforceable due to lack of agency aut
• Touche Ross & Co. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  609 F.2d 570· 2d Cir.· 1979-05-10 ·cited 36×
  Judicial review of final agency action is always available to aggrieved parties, and courts can correct agency errors and abuses of discretion.
• Hoots v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  587 F.2d 1340· 3d Cir.· 1978-10-27 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge holds that the court has appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order, which effectively denied all relief for de jure segregation.
• Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps. v. Dunn
  561 F.2d 1310· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 36×
  Appellants, former federal employees, lack standing to challenge the Air Force's decision to outsource food services, and their claims under the Service Contract Act, Veterans Preference Act, and Pellerzi standards fail.
• Vecchione v. Helene Wohlgemuth
  558 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the state officials' attorneys had the authority to consent to the decree, and the state waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by its conduct and failure to appeal. Therefore, the Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the consent decree was properly denied.
• McNAMARA v. Johnston
  522 F.2d 1157· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-16 ·cited 36×
  Union officers are not liable under LMRDA § 501 for expenditures authorized by the union's constitution and resolutions, even if those expenditures might violate other statutes like the Corrupt Practices Act.
• GAY Students Org. OF the Univ. OF NEW Hampshire v. Bonner
  509 F.2d 652· 1st Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that restricting a student organization's social functions on campus impermissibly abridged its members' First Amendment rights of association, even if the organization was recognized and other activities were permitted.
• Cromaglass Corp. v. Ferm
  500 F.2d 601· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that an order effectively denying injunctive relief on one count of a multi-count complaint, where other counts seek different injunctive relief on distinct legal theories, is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Thistlethwaite v. The City OF NEW York
  497 F.2d 339· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a prior state court determination on the constitutionality of park regulations, arising from a criminal conviction for violating those regulations, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent federal action under the Civil Rights Act seeking similar relief.
• Kimball v. Callahan
  493 F.2d 564· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that Klamath Indians who withdrew from the tribe retain treaty rights to hunt, trap, and fish free of state regulation on their ancestral reservation lands, even after termination of federal supervision.
• Thoms v. Heffernan
  473 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge believes the court lacks appellate jurisdiction because the three-judge district court failed to properly address injunctive relief, and thus the case should be remanded.
• United States v. Lieb
  462 F.2d 1161· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1972-06-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the landlord violated rent stabilization regulations by increasing rents for existing tenants during the freeze period, and that the agency had the authority to interpret and implement the regulations.
• NIX v. Fulton Lodge NO. 2 OF the Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  452 F.2d 794· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-17 ·cited 36×
• Shultz v. Parke
  413 F.2d 1364· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-18 ·cited 36×
• Webster Bivens v. SIX Unknown Named Agents OF the Fed. Bureau OF Narcotics
  409 F.2d 718· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 36×
  Federal courts can entertain state-created causes of action against federal officers for constitutional violations, even if no specific federal statute authorizes such suits.
• Boucher v. Novotny
  102 So. 2d 132· Fla.· 1958-04-16 ·cited 36×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a suit by neighboring property owners seeking injunctive relief against alleged zoning ordinance violations, holding that private parties challenging municipal zoning violations must allege and prove special damages differing in kin
• Underwood v. Maloney
  256 F.2d 334· 3d Cir.· 1958-03-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that federal courts must apply state law to determine the capacity of unincorporated associations to sue or be sued in diversity cases, and that Pennsylvania law prohibits class actions by or against such associations, thus requiring dismissal for lack of diversity
• Fink v. Cont'l Foundry & Mach. Co.
  240 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1957-01-03 ·cited 36×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because events occurring after the district court's judgment, including the sale of assets and commencement of liquidation, have rendered it impossible for the appellate court to grant effectual relief.
• Carter v. United States
  135 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1943-04-12 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge believes the conviction for criminal contempt cannot stand because the order disobeyed was void for lack of jurisdiction, and thus not a lawful order.
• Salazar v. Buono
  559 U.S. 700· U.S.· 2010-04-28 ·cited 35×
• In re Application to Adjudge the Providence Journal Co. & its Executive Editor
  820 F.2d 1342· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 35×
  A party subject to an order that constitutes a transparently invalid prior restraint on pure speech may challenge the order by violating it, and such an order cannot form the basis for a contempt citation.
• Polk Bros., Inc. v. Forest City Enters., Inc.
  776 F.2d 185· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-31 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the restrictive covenant was ancillary to a productive venture and thus subject to the Rule of Reason, not per se invalidation under antitrust law. It also held that Polk's breaches did not bar enforcement under the unclean hands doctrine as they were not subs
• Pizzeria UNO Corp. v. James W. Temple, Jr.
  747 F.2d 1522· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-20 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's trademark rights were infringed, injunctive relief was denied because there was no actual competition in the relevant geographical area, but without prejudice to future claims.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co.
  735 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1984-05-18 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the doctrine of laches to bar the EEOC's suit, as the elements of the defense were not established on this record.
• Bennett v. Bennett
  682 F.2d 1039· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that federal courts can enforce state custody decrees and that a party should not be forced to waive injunctive relief to proceed in federal court.
• In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. & Nat'l Union Elec. Corp.
  631 F.2d 1069· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge would hold that no case, properly separated into claims cognizable at common law, can be too complex for a jury trial without violating due process.
• Von Hoffburg v. Alexander
  615 F.2d 633· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 35×
  A plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies for claims that can be resolved by the military's internal system, but can pursue monetary damages in court if administrative remedies are inadequate for that specific relief.
• Greater Tampa Chamber OF Commerce v. Goldschmidt
  627 F.2d 258· D.C. Cir.· 1980-02-08 ·cited 35×
  Appellants lack standing to challenge the executive agreement because they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that a favorable court decision would redress their asserted injuries.
• Jones v. Diamond
  594 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while some injunctive relief was warranted, the plaintiffs were entitled to further relief, including potential damages for constitutional violations, and that the case should be remanded for further consideration of class certification and damages.
• The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Hillsborough Cnty. v. CASA Dev. Ltd., II
  332 So. 2d 651· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-05-28 ·cited 35×
  The Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County denied an application for water and sewer franchises. The circuit court reversed the denial using certiorari review. On appeal, the district court held that certiorari was an improper remedy because the Board's action was q
• W. Penn Power Co. v. Train
  522 F.2d 302· 3d Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge believes that an EPA notice of violation for non-compliance with an air pollution regulation is judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Boire v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
  515 F.2d 1185· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred and in granting prohibitory injunctive relief while denying mandatory relief, as § 10(j) relief is extraordinary and should not usurp the Board's primary func
• Cook v. Whiteside
  505 F.2d 32· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the inmate's pro se complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
• Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Warren Concrete Prods. Co. OF N. J.
  374 F.2d 649· 3d Cir.· 1967-02-27 ·cited 35×
  In the absence of specific legislative authorization, attorneys' fees may not be awarded to defendants in private anti-trust litigation.
• Gertrude Lawley v. Town OF Golfview
  174 So. 2d 767· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-05-07 ·cited 35×
  A property owner challenged a zoning ordinance that restricted her small lot in the southwest corner of Golfview to residential use while virtually all other property bordering Military Trail was zoned commercial. The court reversed the trial court's denial of injunctive relief,
• Miami Beach Lerner Shops, Inc. v. Walco Mfg. OF Fla., Inc.
  106 So. 2d 233· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-11-13 ·cited 35×
  Miami Beach Lerner Shops appealed a decree awarding damages for allegedly copying a beach coat design belonging to Walco Manufacturing. The court reversed in part, reducing actual damages from $2,014.50 to $266.50 because the higher award was based on speculation, but upheld puni
• Zwack v. Kraus Bros. & Co., Inc.
  237 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1956-10-02 ·cited 35×
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over the injunctive provisions of the decree but not over the monetary awards or the reference to a master, and affirmed certain conclusions of law while remanding others.
• Payne v. City OF Miami
  927 So. 2d 904· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-11-16 ·cited 34×
  Marine Group and Herbert Payne, members opposing a mixed-use residential development on the Miami River, appealed a trial court's dismissal of their challenge to a City of Miami rezoning and special permit on standing grounds. The court reversed, holding that the appellants had a
• Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Porcher
  898 So. 2d 153· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-03-09 ·cited 34×
  Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. appealed a trial court's class certification order in a case alleging wrongful assessment of late fees on timely mortgage payments. The Fourth District reversed, holding that individual liability issues predominate over common questions and that the
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. Brotherhood OF Maintenance OF WAY Employees
  327 F.3d 1309· 11th Cir.· 2003-04-21 ·cited 34×
  CSX Transportation sued the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE) for damages resulting from a surprise illegal strike initiated without notice on August 17, 1995, over two disputes: whether supervisors could perform minor track repairs and whether a worker named Ham
• The Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. I.C.
  742 So. 2d 401· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-09-01 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the scope of a juvenile court's authority to oversee DCF's operations in a dependency case. The trial judge, disturbed by DCF's practice of temporarily housing children with disabilities at an assessment center while awaiting
• Piercy v. The Sch. Bd. OF Wash. Cnty.
  576 So. 2d 806· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-03-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a teacher's grievance regarding non-renewal of her contract, alleging discrimination and violation of the collective bargaining agreement, presented an arbitrable issue, and the teacher did not waive her right to arbitration.
• AETNA Life Ins. Co. v. Borges
  869 F.2d 142· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-23 ·cited 34×
  The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not preempt Connecticut's escheat law as applied to uncollected benefit checks and drafts issued by ERISA-covered plans, because the law's impact is too tenuous, remote, and peripheral.
• Kaszuk v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int'l Pension Fund
  791 F.2d 548· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Fund's methods of notifying participants about the pre-retirement husband-and-wife pension plan were inadequate under ERISA, and that the Fund failed to prove Mr. Kaszuk had actual notice or would not have elected the option if properly notified.
• Alan and Nancy Garrett v. Janiewski
  480 So. 2d 1324· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-09-25 ·cited 34×
  Mobile home park owners appealed a judgment finding their rent increases unconscionable and awarding tenant refunds. The appellate court reversed, holding that a $15 per month price-value disparity above fair market rent does not constitute substantive unconscionability requiring