Injunctive Relief

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

• The Frostie Co. v. DR. Pepper Co.
  361 F.2d 124· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-23 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the district court's final decree, finding no abuse of discretion in its decisions regarding injunctive relief, destruction of infringing materials, and costs.
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR the Advancement OF Colored People v. Thompson
  357 F.2d 831· 5th Cir.· 1966-03-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying injunctive relief and dismissing the complaint, finding that state and local officials had engaged in a pattern of harassment and unjustified arrests to suppress civil rights protests, and that the denial of corporate domest
• Turner v. Kings River Conservation Dist.
  360 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that government officials operating a dam were authorized to interfere with downstream riparian water rights, and the proper remedy for injured parties was a suit for damages in the Court of Claims, not an injunction.
• Hedberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  350 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1965-08-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount because they had a common and undivided interest in the defendant's conduct, and that the restrictive covenant in the employment contracts was reasonable and enforceable under Minneso
• Am. Dredging Co. v. Local 25, Marine Div., Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO
  338 F.2d 837· 3d Cir.· 1964-10-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a suit to enjoin a union's violation of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement arises under federal labor law and is removable to federal court, even though federal law, specifically the Norris-La Guardia Act, precludes injunctive relief in su
• Madden v. Grain Elevator
  334 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1964-07-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the union in contempt and imposing fines, as the union's actions constituted a continuation of the secondary boycott despite the president's letter and the union failed to purge itself of contempt.
• Archibald E. Roberts v. Cyrus R. Vance
  343 F.2d 236· D.C. Cir.· 1964-06-18 ·cited 26×
• Helene P. Pierre v. Jordan
  333 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1964-06-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as the primary purpose of the suit was to challenge the formation of a local water district, not to redress constitutional rights deprivat
• United States v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Greene Cnty.
  332 F.2d 40· 5th Cir.· 1964-05-15 ·cited 26×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no clear error in the factual findings and no abuse of discretion in denying the injunction.
• Wirtz v. Young Elec. Sign Co.
  315 F.2d 326· 10th Cir.· 1963-02-19 ·cited 26×
  A district court's summary judgment of no cause of action is erroneous if based on the premise that present compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act bars injunctive relief for past violations, or if it fails to make findings on disputed material facts.
• Goss v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Knoxville
  301 F.2d 164· 6th Cir.· 1962-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the school board's twelve-year desegregation plan was too slow and did not demonstrate good faith compliance with the Supreme Court's mandate for desegregation with all deliberate speed.
• Main Line Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp.
  298 F.2d 801· 3d Cir.· 1962-01-16 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was no meeting of the minds and thus no final settlement agreement because the plaintiffs never agreed to the objectionable clause in the release.
• First Iowa Hydro Elec. Coop. v. Iowa-Illinois GAS & Elec. Co.
  245 F.2d 613· 8th Cir.· 1957-05-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' willful refusal to comply with court orders, including refusing to testify and failing to deposit required funds, constituted a failure to prosecute and justified dismissal of the action with prejudice.
• Lige Estes v. Shell OIL Co.
  234 F.2d 847· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action for want of indispensable parties when the plaintiff sought only a money judgment and injunctive relief, not affecting the rights of absent parties.
• Holland v. NIX
  214 F.2d 317· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the statutory prohibition against suits to restrain tax collection does not apply when the exaction is illegal or there are extraordinary equitable circumstances.
• Stanton v. Harris
  152 Fla. 736· Fla.· 1943-04-16 ·cited 26×
  Union members denied the right to vote in a business agent election sought injunctive relief, but the court reviewed an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint.
• Hammond v. Hull
  D.D.C.· 1942-10-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's suit was prematurely brought and failed to state a cause of action, affirming the dismissal of the complaint.
• Helms v. Holmes
  129 F.2d 263· 4th Cir.· 1942-06-15 ·cited 26×
  A bankrupt who fails to plead a discharge in bankruptcy as a defense in a state court action on a discharged debt waives that defense, and a subsequent default judgment is valid and enforceable.
• Knight v. The City of Miami
  127 Fla. 585· Fla.· 1937-03-29 ·cited 26×
  Property owners sought equitable relief to enjoin the City of Miami from summarily destroying their rental dwelling houses without notice or hearing. The Florida Supreme Court held that the bill stated a valid claim for equitable jurisdiction because the owners lacked an adequate
• T & W Developers, Inc. v. Salmonsen
  31 So. 3d 298· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-04-01 ·cited 25×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an award of attorney's fees, holding that neither party was entitled to fees under section 723.068 because their litigation did not primarily seek to enforce provisions of chapter 723. The court found that the core issues litigated in
• Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel
  795 So. 2d 191· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-09-26 ·cited 25×
  This case addresses whether a trial court may order demolition of buildings found inconsistent with a county's comprehensive land use plan. The Fourth District affirmed the trial court's authority to do so, holding that section 163.3215 of Florida's Growth Management Act establis
• Coastal Dev. OF N. Fla., Inc. v. City OF Jacksonville Beach
  788 So. 2d 204· Fla.· 2001-04-12 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that small-scale development plan amendments under Florida Statutes section 163.3187(l)(c) are legislative decisions subject to the deferential 'fairly debatable' standard of review, not quasi-judicial decisions requiring strict scrutiny. The court
• Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Coop. Corp. v. Prime One Cap. Co.
  125 F. Supp. 2d 1093· S.D. Fla.· 2000-12-19 ·cited 25×
  The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding conversion claims.
• N.G.L. Travel Assocs. v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
  764 So. 2d 672· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-05-31 ·cited 25×
  N.G.L. Travel Associates appealed the dismissal of its amended complaint against cruise lines for allegedly inflating port charges and depriving travel agencies of commissions. The Florida appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that travel agencies acting as service prov
• Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n
  908 F.2d 144· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the sale of a railroad line is a management prerogative not subject to mandatory bargaining under the Railway Labor Act, and thus the unions' Section 6 notice did not freeze the status quo, allowing the sale to proceed while effects bargaining occurs.
• Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF Puerto RICO
  906 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction exists for a suit seeking to enjoin state officials from enforcing state laws preempted by federal statutes, and that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action to enforce the immunity granted by the Cable Act.
• Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cletus Cozart and Patricia Cozart
  561 So. 2d 368· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-05-04 ·cited 25×
  The court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to increase an injunction bond from $10, holding that such a nominal bond is tantamount to no bond and that trial courts must consider anticipated costs and damages when setting or modifying bond amounts, though they may also
• Carillon Corp. v. Seymour Devick and Florence Devick
  554 So. 2d 630· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-12-28 ·cited 25×
  Carillon Corporation appealed an order striking its pleadings and entering default judgment for failure to comply with a trial court order to retain new counsel within fifteen days. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to ent
• DeSisto Coll., Inc. v. Town of Howey-In-The-Hills
  718 F. Supp. 906· M.D. Fla.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that prevailing defendants are entitled to costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and § 1821, but not attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 unless the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, which it found to be the case here.
• Fuller Crews, Sr. v. Ellis
  531 So. 2d 1372· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-09-29 ·cited 25×
  Fuller Crews appealed the dismissal of his petition for injunctive relief and common law certiorari seeking reinstatement as a deputy sheriff after his discharge for alleged sexual misconduct. The trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice, but the appellate court reversed
• DeMALLORY v. Cullen
  855 F.2d 442· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim regarding unsanitary conditions and dangerous inmate interactions requires more than a showing of negligence, but the district court improperly granted summary judgment without addressing the core allegations. The court also
• Parola v. Caspar Weinberger
  848 F.2d 956· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 25×
  Federal agencies must comply with local ordinances requiring exclusive garbage collection franchises when those ordinances are part of a state's solid waste management plan under RCRA § 6001.
• N. Grp. Servs., Inc. v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
  833 F.2d 85· 6th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Michigan No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act is saved from ERISA preemption by the ERISA 'savings' clause and is not barred by the 'deemer' clause, as it regulates insurance.
• Garcia v. Lawn
  805 F.2d 1400· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the appeal was not moot because reinstatement could still provide effective relief, and remanded for consideration of irreparable harm beyond economic loss, specifically the chilling effect of retaliation on other employees' exercise of Title VII rights.
• Hubbard v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency
  809 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the availability of injunctive relief, such as reinstatement, constitutes a special factor counseling hesitation against allowing a Bivens action for alleged constitutional violations in federal employment.
• Hosp. Corp. OF Lake Worth & Hosp. Corp. of Am. v. Raul Romaguera, M.D.
  511 So. 2d 559· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-09-17 ·cited 25×
  A hospital corporation appeals a jury verdict awarding a pathologist compensatory and punitive damages for tortious interference with his business relationships after terminating his exclusive contract and staff privileges. The court affirmed that a hospital bylaw amendment modif
• Olympus Corp. v. United States
  792 F.2d 315· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Customs Service regulation was invalid because it was not supported by a consistent or coherent statutory basis, despite the Service's shifting rationales.
• In re Certain Complaints Under Investigation BY AN Investigating Comm. OF the Jud. Council OF the Eleventh Cir. Betty Ann Williams & Alan Ehrlich v. Mercer
  783 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 25×
  The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has exclusive original jurisdiction to enforce or quash subpoenas issued under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, and the Act's subpoena provisions are constitutional.
• Josie Jaimes v. Toledo Metro. Hous. Auth.
  758 F.2d 1086· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they failed to demonstrate a concrete injury that was fairly traceable to the defendants' conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.
• N. Side Lumber Co. v. Block
  753 F.2d 1482· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 25×
  The Tucker Act does not impliedly forbid equitable relief or preclude waiver of sovereign immunity for claims that government contracts were void.
• Burndy Corp. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc.
  748 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the denial of damages and injunctive relief, holding that while Teledyne violated the Lanham Act, Burndy failed to prove its damages were caused by the violation and that injunctive relief was unwarranted.
• McGRUDER v. Necaise
  733 F.2d 1146· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 25×
  Prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages liability for actions taken within the scope of their prosecutorial duties, and the State is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
• Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Bd. & E. Airlines, Inc.
  681 F.2d 1039· 5th Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) had the statutory authority under the Federal Aviation Act to regulate smoking on aircraft, and that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 did not divest the CAB of this authority. The court also held that there was no implied
• Bush v. Muncy
  659 F.2d 402· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 25×
  Violations of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) trial-before-return provisions are not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus, but can be grounds for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prosecutorial immunity bars claims against Maryland officials, but claims agains
• Donovan v. Univ. OF Tex. AT EL Paso
  643 F.2d 1201· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-01 ·cited 25×
  FLSA § 17 actions brought by the Secretary of Labor are not subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class action certification.
• DELTA Gen. Corp. v. Priess
  389 So. 2d 1083· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-11-04 ·cited 25×
  A mandatory injunction cannot be granted prior to a final hearing unless the right is clear and free from doubt.
• The S. La. Env't Council, Inc. v. Sand
  629 F.2d 1005· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Army Corps of Engineers complied with NEPA and FWPCA requirements in its environmental impact statements for the Atchafalaya River project, and the project's economic justifications were not subject to extensive judicial review.
• Martin Tractor Co. v. Fed. Election Comm'n
  627 F.2d 375· D.C. Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act's provisions restricting solicitation by corporate political action committees were not ripe for adjudication, either on their face or as applied.
• Quincy OIL, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Admin.
  620 F.2d 890· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1980-04-09 ·cited 25×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals concerning mootness in cases arising under the ESA/EPAA, and affirmed the dismissal of the Quincy case, reversed the dismissal of the Gulf case, and dismissed the DOE's appeal in the Exxon case for lack of standing.
• Boston Prof'l Hockey Ass'n, Inc. v. Dallas CAP & Emblem Mfg., Inc.
  597 F.2d 71· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of an exclusive right usurpation was clearly erroneous, requiring recalculation of damages based on a non-exclusive license. It also remanded the issue of increased damages for further findings.