Injunctive Relief

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

• White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams
  810 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 33×
  A preemption claim under the Supremacy Clause, based on federal occupation of a field or conflict with federal goals, does not give rise to a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore does not support an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• DAN River, Inc. v. Icahn
  701 F.2d 278· 4th Cir.· 1983-01-07 ·cited 33×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's grant of interlocutory relief, finding that Dan River is likely to succeed on claims of tender offer violations and irreparable harm, and that the public interest supports maintaining the status quo.
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. Sureck
  681 F.2d 624· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the INS factory surveys, by stationing agents at exits and questioning workers, constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, requiring reasonable suspicion that each questioned person is an alien illegally in the country.
• The Est. OF George Drew Conger v. Conger
  414 So. 2d 230· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-05-04 ·cited 33×
  The personal representative of an estate holding majority stock in Conger Life Insurance Company attempted to discharge the company's board and president (the decedent's son, who was the named trustee) and assume control. The court affirmed the trial court's injunction restoring
• Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Reed W. Thompson
  667 F.2d 659· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-11 ·cited 33×
• ITT Rayonier Inc. v. United States
  651 F.2d 343· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 33×
  A case is moot when the underlying dispute has been settled, and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply.
• Pamel Corp. v. The Puerto RICO Hwy. Auth.
  621 F.2d 33· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-22 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a complaint seeking damages for inverse condemnation due to zoning reclassification fails to state a claim, as the proper remedy is to void the restriction, not award damages.
• Cooper Vill., Inc. v. Moretti
  383 So. 2d 705· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-04-30 ·cited 33×
  Court denied Cooper Village's petition for common law certiorari challenging the circuit court's refusal to discharge a notice of lis pendens, finding no departure from essential legal requirements.
• Penthouse Int'l, Ltd. v. Hinson McAULIFFE
  610 F.2d 1353· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 33×
  The court held that certain pictorial and verbal content in the magazines appealed to the prurient interest and lacked serious value, violating Georgia law.
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Dep't OF Commerce
  365 So. 2d 432· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-12-19 ·cited 33×
  Metropolitan Dade County and related agencies appealed a circuit court's dismissal of their declaratory judgment action against the Department of Commerce regarding allegedly improper unemployment compensation contribution demands. The court affirmed the dismissal but remanded to
• Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  588 F.2d 895· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-07 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in declining jurisdiction over claims regarding the adequacy of the FTC's protective order and enforcement mechanisms, but not over the Freedom of Information Act claim.
• Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc.
  363 So. 2d 1082· Fla.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court clarified standing requirements in zoning disputes, holding that competitors in the heavily regulated liquor industry have standing to challenge zoning decisions affecting their business because they suffer special injury distinct from the general public
• Shipp v. Hardin E. Todd
  568 F.2d 133· 9th Cir.· 1978-01-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a state court clerk has quasi-judicial immunity from damages but not from suits for injunctive relief, and federal courts have the power to expunge criminal records.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. OF Cal.
  535 F.2d 533· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-11 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the 180-day language in Title VII does not limit the EEOC's ability to file suit, state statutes of limitations do not bar EEOC claims for injunctive relief or back pay, and the EEOC can include claims discovered during a reasonable investigation even if not i
• William F. Wilke, Inc. v. Dep't OF the Army OF the United States
  485 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 33×
  A disappointed bidder has standing to contest a government contract award to another whose bid was tardy and wrongfully considered, but is limited to recovery of bid preparation costs.
• The Airlines Stewards & Stewardesses Ass'n v. Caribbean Atl. Airlines, Inc.
  412 F.2d 289· 1st Cir.· 1969-07-08 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred in assuming jurisdiction over a dispute that should have been classified as a minor dispute, subject to arbitration, rather than a major dispute requiring injunctive relief.
• Hall Davis v. Francois
  395 F.2d 730· 5th Cir.· 1968-05-28 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Port Allen picketing ordinance is unconstitutional on its face because it is overbroad and unduly restricts protected First Amendment rights.
• Audio Fid., Inc. v. High Fid. Recordings, Inc.
  283 F.2d 551· 9th Cir.· 1960-10-29 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the deliberate copying of a record jacket's distinctive, non-functional design, even if the product itself is generic, can constitute unfair competition under California law if it is likely to cause public confusion.
• Shore v. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Pittsburgh
  173 F.2d 678· 3d Cir.· 1949-03-04 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) improperly asserted jurisdiction by aggregating interstate commerce figures too broadly.
• Till v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  124 F.2d 405· 10th Cir.· 1941-12-17 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding diversity jurisdiction and that the failure to appoint guardians ad litem for minors did not render the judgment void, as their interests were adequately represented by their next friends.
• Mrs. Frank P. McGhan v. McGhan
  115 Fla. 414· Fla.· 1934-06-14 ·cited 33×
  This case involves a dispute over the use of similar names for ambulance services. The court found that while confusion resulted from the similar names, an outright ban on using "McGhan" and "Ambulance Service" together was too broad. The injunction was vacated and the case reman
• Wright v. City OF Miami Gardens
  200 So. 3d 765· Fla.· 2016-09-15 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a 2011 amendment to the election code that disqualified candidates whose qualifying fee checks were returned by banks after the qualifying period ended—regardless of who was at fault—violates the Florida Constitution's guarantee of the right to
• Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea
  170 So. 3d 125· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-07-02 ·cited 32×
  Gawker Media sought a writ of mandamus to prevent trial from proceeding on July 6, 2015, arguing the trial court violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 by scheduling trial without observing the mandatory fifty-day waiting period between service of the last pleading and tr
• Kertesz v. Net Transactions, Ltd.
  635 F. Supp. 2d 1339· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants Ventura and TB, and that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a monetary damages claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
• Hillsborough Cnty. v. Fla. Rest. Ass'n, Inc.
  603 So. 2d 587· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-07-17 ·cited 32×
  Hillsborough County enacted an ordinance requiring health warning signs in establishments serving alcohol. The trial court invalidated the ordinance as preempted by state law and inconsistent with the Florida Constitution. The appellate court reversed, holding that the ordinance
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. City OF Fort Lauderdale
  934 F.2d 283· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that amendments to a city's sign code do not render a constitutional challenge moot, and the case must be decided on its merits.
• In re the Complaint of Keys JET SKI, Inc. v. Kays
  893 F.2d 1225· Fed. Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 32×
  The Limitation of Liability Act applies to pleasure craft, including jet skis, and the district court erred in holding otherwise.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. First City Fin. Corp., Ltd.
  890 F.2d 1215· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that any alleged errors in the district court's calculus for granting an injunction were harmless, and the injunction was properly affirmed.
• United States v. State OF Wash.
  872 F.2d 874· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-12 ·cited 32×
  Congress did not expressly and unequivocally waive federal sovereign immunity from administrative penalties assessed by a state for alleged violations of its hazardous waste management laws in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
• Ross v. Breder
  528 So. 2d 64· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-07-05 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari, quashing a lower court's order that denied the dissolution of a notice of lis pendens. The appellate court held that while a lis pendens was appropriate, the partnership agreement and deed did n
• Hickey v. Duffy
  827 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that even if a federal statutory claim was ripe, the district court should have abstained from deciding it due to parallel state proceedings and important state interests.
• Serio v. Members OF La. State Bd. OF Pardons
  821 F.2d 1112· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 32×
  Members of the Louisiana State Board of Pardons are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims. Claims for injunctive relief that are essentially attacks on a single parole hearing require exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies.
• The Md. Cas. Co. v. Armco, Inc.
  822 F.2d 1348· 4th Cir.· 1987-07-06 ·cited 32×
  Claims for reimbursement of environmental cleanup costs and compliance with regulatory directives do not constitute 'damages' under a general comprehensive liability insurance policy.
• Grand Union Co. v. Food Emp'rs Labor Relations Ass'n & United Food & Commercial Workers Pension Fund
  808 F.2d 66· D.C. Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that employers must exhaust mandatory arbitration under MPPAA before suing in federal court and that employers cannot sue trustees individually for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA Title I for withdrawal liability disputes.
• Malachowski v. City OF Keene
  787 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from hearing claims for injunctive relief related to pending state juvenile delinquency proceedings and that various appellees were immune from damages claims or failed to state a claim under § 1983.
• CPG Prods. Corp. v. Pegasus Luggage, Inc.
  776 F.2d 1007· Fed. Cir.· 1985-10-17 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the patent infringement and unfair competition judgments but reversed and remanded the denial of increased patent damages and attorney fees due to willful infringement.
• T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc. v. Management-Labor Welf. & Pension Funds
  756 F.2d 939· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 32×
  Compliance with MPPAA § 1415 transfer provisions is not a condition precedent to an employer's withdrawal liability payment obligation.
• Geraghty v. United States Parole Comm'n & Attorney Gen. of United States & Superintendent
  719 F.2d 1199· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-06 ·cited 32×
• R.W.T. v. The Honorable Donald E. Dalton
  712 F.2d 1225· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 32×
  Juveniles detained without a probable-cause determination by a neutral magistrate violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, regardless of whether the alleged act is criminal or a status offense. State judges are not proper defendants for prospective relief under § 1983, but t
• Ismene M. Kalaris v. Donovan
  697 F.2d 376· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor can remove members of the Benefits Review Board at his discretion, as the Board is not an Article III court and the Act does not provide for removal only for cause.
• Rosebrough Monument Co. v. Mem'l Park Cemetery Ass'n
  666 F.2d 1130· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the cemeteries' exclusive foundation preparation policy constitutes an illegal tying arrangement and an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act.
• The Amalgamated Sugar Co. & U & I Inc. v. Bergland
  664 F.2d 818· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the repayment of loans rendered the case moot, and the remaining claim for storage payments was a monetary claim against the United States properly brought in the Court of Claims, not the district court.
• Freimanis v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  654 F.2d 1155· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the state was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that the plaintiff's procedural and substantive claims against the shipowner lacked merit.
• Hejira Corp. v. MacFARLANE
  660 F.2d 1356· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Colorado Drug Paraphernalia Act's definition of drug paraphernalia, when read as 'primarily designed and intended,' is not unconstitutionally vague, and that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Act.
• Johnson & Johnson v. Carter-Wallace, Inc.
  631 F.2d 186· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act need not prove actual quantified damages, but only a likelihood of damage resulting from false advertising.
• President v. Cyrus R. Vance
  627 F.2d 353· D.C. Cir.· 1980-04-25 ·cited 32×
  A federal employee's administrative complaint need not explicitly request promotion to exhaust administrative remedies for a promotion claim under Title VII.
• People OF the State OF Ill. v. City OF Milwaukee
  599 F.2d 151· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 32×
  The Federal Water Pollution Control Act does not preempt the federal common law of nuisance, nor does it limit the relief available in such actions to the statutory minimums. Compliance with a permit is not a defense.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Koracorp Indus., Inc.
  575 F.2d 692· 9th Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 32×
  Summary judgment for most defendants is reversed because the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof and genuine issues of material fact existed regarding culpability and likelihood of future violations. Summary judgment for Andersen is affirmed because no materia
• Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance
  559 F.2d 1286· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 32×
• BT Inv. Managers, Inc. v. Lewis
  559 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court improperly abstained from exercising its jurisdiction because the Florida statutes in question were clear and did not present an uncertain state law issue, nor did they implicate an overriding state interest that would justify abstention.