Injunctive Relief

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

• City OF Coral Springs v. Fla. Nat'l Props., Inc.
  340 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-12-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for injunctive relief because it did not sufficiently allege irreparable harm.
• Nixon v. Honorable Charles R. Richey
  513 F.2d 430· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that its prior order directing the district judge to rule on the three-judge court application constituted a mandate that the judge was bound to follow, and that his subsequent release of an opinion in consolidated cases did not negate this mandate.
• Bradford v. Weinstein
  519 F.2d 728· 4th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge holds that state prisoners challenging parole procedures must first exhaust state remedies and then pursue habeas corpus, not a § 1983 action.
• United Transp. Union v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  505 F.2d 542· 3d Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the dispute over work assignments was a 'minor' dispute under the Railway Labor Act, not a 'major' one, and thus the district court did not err in denying an injunction to maintain the status quo.
• United States v. The State OF Cal.
  504 F.2d 750· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1974-09-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief because the Economic Stabilization Program had expired, and the exceptions to the expiration did not apply to the facts presented.
• Workman v. Mitchell
  502 F.2d 1201· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to order compliance with due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings and that plaintiffs had standing to represent a class of prisoners. The court also held that the Morrissey-Gagnon st
• Francisco Enters., Inc. v. Kirby
  482 F.2d 481· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that res judicata principles precluded the federal district court from entertaining the appellant's complaint, as the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is considered a state court of limited jurisdiction.
• Burt Fujishima v. Bd. OF Educ.
  460 F.2d 1355· 7th Cir.· 1972-05-04 ·cited 30×
  A Chicago Board of Education rule requiring prior approval of publications distributed on school premises is an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment.
• Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World
  461 F.2d 1040· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court's order limiting the scope of injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Crossen v. Breckenridge
  446 F.2d 833· 6th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 30×
  Appellants Crossen and Craddock have standing and presented a case or controversy; appellant Pozzuto and the Women's Liberation Group lack standing. A three-judge court must be convened for the remaining appellants.
• J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. The United States Treas. Dep't
  439 F.2d 63· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Customs Court has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to administrative decisions involving customs laws, including constitutional issues.
• Bayless v. Martine
  430 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the students' suspensions were valid because they violated lawful directions from the Dean of Students regarding the time and place of their demonstration.
• S. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen
  384 F.2d 323· D.C. Cir.· 1967-07-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to enjoin alleged violations of collective bargaining agreements if they constituted minor disputes, and thus suspended those portions of the injunction pending appeal. However, the court declined to suspend injunc
• Florists' Nationwide Tel. Delivery Network-America's Phone-Order Florists, Inc. v. Florists' Tel. Delivery Ass'n
  371 F.2d 263· 7th Cir.· 1967-01-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing to instruct the jury on the defendant's theory of defense, requiring a new trial on the damages claim. The court also found that the denial of injunctive relief was improper as it was based on findings co
• Richey v. Wilkins
  335 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1964-07-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a prisoner's good-faith procedural error in filing a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals instead of the district court, and the prisoner's transfer to another facility, do not prevent the appeal from being heard or render the claim moot, especially when
• Armstrong v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Birmingham
  333 F.2d 47· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that alleged ethnic disparities do not provide a basis for continuing segregated schools and remanded for a plan meeting minimum desegregation standards.
• Thompson v. Gleason
  317 F.2d 901· D.C. Cir.· 1962-07-12 ·cited 30×
• Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S.A. v. McLEOD
  300 F.2d 222· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board exceeded its jurisdiction by directing an election for a Honduran-flagged vessel's crew, violating treaty obligations and international law principles.
• Del. Valley Marine Supply Co. v. Am. Tobacco Co.
  297 F.2d 199· 3d Cir.· 1961-12-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that conscious parallelism, without more, is insufficient to prove a conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
• Moore v. Ina S. Thompson
  126 So. 2d 543· Fla.· 1960-12-16 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision upholding Chapter 59-295, which prohibited motor vehicle dealers from conducting business on Sundays and certain legal holidays. The Court held the law unconstitutional as an arbitrary prohibition that lacked a valid and s
• Glen Oaks Utils., Inc. v. City OF Houston
  280 F.2d 330· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-30 ·cited 30×
  A stay order in a federal court action, which effectively denies a requested injunction, is appealable, even if it is a procedural step in controlling the cause's progress.
• Ogden River Water Users' Ass'n v. Weber Basin Water Conservancy
  238 F.2d 936· 10th Cir.· 1956-10-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the suit against federal officers was, in substance, a suit against the United States, which had not consented to be sued, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Indep. Petroleum Workers of N.J. v. Esso Standard OIL Co.
  235 F.2d 401· 3d Cir.· 1956-06-26 ·cited 30×
  A federal district court has jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to decree specific performance of a collective bargaining agreement provision requiring negotiation on salary rates for new job classifications.
• Cal. State Bd. OF Equalization v. Coast Radio Prods.
  228 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1955-12-14 ·cited 30×
  A bankruptcy court cannot enjoin a state from collecting a non-dischargeable tax debt from a discharged bankrupt's after-acquired property, even if the state failed to file a timely claim in bankruptcy when funds were available.
• Tate v. Arnold
  223 F.2d 782· 8th Cir.· 1955-06-28 ·cited 30×
  A justice of the peace is entitled to judicial immunity for acts performed in their official capacity, and the Civil Rights Act does not abrogate this immunity.
• Vrasic v. Lome Leibel
  106 So. 3d 485· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-01-09 ·cited 29×
  Michelle Vrasic appealed a temporary injunction granted to Lome Leibel that prohibited her from using his name in commercial contexts and publishing her book containing references to him. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the 'no contact' provision but reversed the spe
• Kelly v. Palmer, Reifler, & Assocs., P.A.
  681 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2010-01-11 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts.
• Ward v. Brown
  894 So. 2d 811· Fla.· 2004-10-21 ·cited 29×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the mandatory 60-day filing period in section 194.171(1) applies broadly to all taxpayer actions challenging property tax assessments, regardless of whether the challenge is framed as contesting an 'assessment' or a 'classification.' The Court
• United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
  537 U.S. 465· U.S.· 2003-03-04 ·cited 29×
  The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over the White Mountain Apache Tribe's suit against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty to manage land held in trust, as the 1960 Act, combined with general trust law, can be fairly interpreted as mandating compensation for
• Reinish v. Clark
  765 So. 2d 197· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-07-20 ·cited 29×
  Stanley and Carol Reinish, Illinois residents who own property in Florida used as a part-time residence, challenged the constitutionality of Florida's homestead tax exemption as violating the Equal Protection Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and dormant Commerce Clause.
• Abele v. Sawyer
  750 So. 2d 70· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-10-20 ·cited 29×
  The Abele Group appealed the dismissal of their complaint seeking constructive trust, tortious interference, and injunctive relief against the Sawyers and Dantos in a failed commercial development transaction. The court affirmed dismissal of the constructive trust and injunction
• Weaver v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  172 F.3d 771· 11th Cir.· 1999-04-13 ·cited 29×
  Mary Weaver, a terminated employee, pursued discrimination claims in federal court while simultaneously pursuing contractual claims through arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. The district court enjoined the arbitration based on res judicata and waiver defenses,
• Am. Booksellers v. Webb
  919 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 29×
  The majority's interpretation of the statute to permit booksellers to avoid criminal penalties by using 'blinder racks' is not reasonable given the statutory language.
• Refugio Fernandez v. Brock
  840 F.2d 622· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the farmworkers have standing to sue because the invasion of procedural rights allegedly created by ERISA provisions is sufficient to establish injury in fact, but that the statute does not mandate the Secretary to promulgate regulations for seasonal workers.
• Makana LEE & Ft. Steuben Co., Inc. v. Johnson
  799 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-07 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Government's position must be clearly reasonable, well-founded in law and fact, to be considered substantially justified under the amended Equal Access to Justice Act.
• Coal. TO Preserve THE Integrity OF Am. Trademarks v. United States
  790 F.2d 903· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Customs Service regulations permitting importation of grey-market goods were invalid as contrary to Section 526 of the Tariff Act of 1930, but that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction.
• Solomon v. City OF Gainesville
  763 F.2d 1212· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 29×
  The court held that Section 29-100(b)(2) of the Gainesville Sign Ordinance is facially unconstitutional due to overbreadth and vagueness, and that the petitioner has standing to challenge it.
• Friedrich Wilhelm Waffenschmidt v. MacKay
  763 F.2d 711· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 29×
  Nonparties who reside outside a court's territorial jurisdiction may be subject to its jurisdiction if they actively aid and abet a party in violating a court order, with actual notice of that order.
• Frolova v. Union OF Soviet Socialist Republics
  761 F.2d 370· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-01 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Soviet Union is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and that the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Hall v. Med. Coll. OF Ohio AT Toledo
  742 F.2d 299· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-28 ·cited 29×
  The dissenting judge believes the college and hospital are not state agencies for Eleventh Amendment purposes and that the case should be remanded for injunctive relief.
• Amparo Cardenas v. Smith
  733 F.2d 909· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-17 ·cited 29×
  The court held that a nonresident alien may have standing to assert constitutional claims against U.S. officials, and that the Treaty does not preclude review of claims arising outside its scope, but remanded for further discovery on the extent of U.S. government involvement.
• Planned Parenthood Ass'n OF Chicago Area v. Kempiners
  700 F.2d 1115· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-23 ·cited 29×
  The court vacated the judgment and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on standing, vacating the prior judgment and ordering reassignment to a different judge.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Holschuh
  694 F.2d 130· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-23 ·cited 29×
  A former corporate president can be held primarily liable for violations of federal securities registration and antifraud provisions if he was a "necessary participant" and "substantial factor" in the unlawful sales, even without direct contact with investors.
• Edison v. Dep't OF THE Army
  672 F.2d 840· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-05 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the appellant failed to prove the Army acted unreasonably in maintaining his records, that the promotion boards saw incorrect security clearance information, or that any inaccuracies caused his non-selection for promotion.
• Philadelphia Citizens IN Action by Roxanne Jones v. Schweiker
  669 F.2d 877· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the federal defendant had good cause under the APA to dispense with notice and comment procedures when promulgating regulations for the AFDC program.
• Africa v. The Commonwealth OF Pa. Leroy S. Zimmerman (Attorney General) Bureau of Corr. Ronald Marks (Commissioner of B.O.C.)
  662 F.2d 1025· 3d Cir.· 1981-10-30 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the prisoner's beliefs and practices associated with the MOVE organization did not constitute a religion protected by the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.
• Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. The Alaska R.R.
  659 F.2d 243· D.C. Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 29×
  The United States and its instrumentalities are not subject to liability under the Sherman Act, even for anticompetitive conduct.
• W. Mining Council v. Watt
  643 F.2d 618· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-23 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge most provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act due to insufficient allegations of actual or threatened injury, and that the remaining claims lacked merit.
• Schoenkopf v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. & Loew's Theatres, Inc.
  637 F.2d 205· 3d Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to infer a conspiracy under the Sherman Act and lacked standing for injunctive relief under the Robinson-Patman Act.
• Micklus v. Carlson
  632 F.2d 227· 3d Cir.· 1980-09-03 ·cited 29×
  The dissenting judge held that the appellant's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding alleged YCA violations are moot because there is no immediate and real possibility of future violations.