Injunctive Relief

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

• Smith v. Miller
  665 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering automatic approval of Medicaid applications not processed within stipulated time limits, as it was a prudent compromise to ensure compliance with federal law.
• United States v. The Composite State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  656 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should abstain from enjoining the state proceedings due to a lack of clear irreparable injury.
• Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Sullivan Transfer, Inc.
  650 F.2d 669· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 14×
  Section 10(k) determinations by the NLRB are not entitled to res judicata or collateral estoppel effect because they are not final adjudications. However, a nonprevailing union cannot recover damages if such recovery would be repugnant to a Section 10(k) determination.
• Dommer v. Crawford
  653 F.2d 289· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the prosecuting attorney cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful detention exceeding 24 hours because Indiana law vests the duty to bring arrestees before a magistrate within statutory limits solely with the city police, not the prosecutor.
• Giulini v. Blessing
  654 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the civil rights complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but that abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate for declaratory and injunctive relief due to pending state criminal proceedings.
• Laborers Fringe Benefit Funds-Detroit AND Vicinity v. Nw. Concrete & Constr., Inc.
  640 F.2d 1350· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-12 ·cited 14×
  A fiduciary of an employee benefit plan can bring an action under ERISA to enjoin an employer from failing to comply with benefit payment provisions of a labor agreement.
• Physicians' Educ. Network, Inc. v. The Dep't of Health
  653 F.2d 621· D.C. Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing because there was no substantial likelihood that rescinding the report would redress the alleged economic injury, especially after Congress enacted legislation contemplated by the report.
• Cobb v. Aytch
  643 F.2d 946· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part the district court's judgment. It affirmed the denial of relief for sentenced inmates, finding no state law expectation regarding their place of confinement. It vacated the injunction for pretrial detainees, remand
• Pingree v. Portia Elaine Quaintance
  394 So. 2d 161· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-02-11 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a trial court's summary judgment ordering it to comply with statutory requirements for judicial review of children in foster care. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Section 409.168 creates a mandatory
• Ziegler v. Ziegler
  632 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding the federal constitutional claim pending a state court's interpretation of a new state statute, as such interpretation might render the federal claim moot.
• City of Los Angeles v. Lyons
  449 U.S. 934· U.S.· 1980-10-20 ·cited 14×
• City Investing Co. & GDV, Inc. v. Simcox
  633 F.2d 56· 7th Cir.· 1980-10-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining under the Pullman doctrine, as a state court's interpretation of the Indiana Takeover Act could moot the federal constitutional claims.
• Hanna v. Toner
  630 F.2d 442· 6th Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Burford abstention doctrine was inapplicable to a case alleging constitutional violations in a juvenile detention home, and federal courts have jurisdiction over such claims.
• N. Haven Bd. OF Educ. v. Hufstedler
  629 F.2d 773· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 14×
  Regulations issued by HEW concerning sex discrimination in educational employment are valid under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
• Agee v. Muskie
  629 F.2d 80· D.C. Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 14×
  The Secretary of State is authorized to revoke Agee's passport due to his activities causing serious damage to national security and foreign policy.
• Seattle Univ. v. United States Dep't OF Health
  621 F.2d 992· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating regulations prohibiting sex discrimination in employment under Title IX, as Title IX does not protect employees directly.
• Bergstrom v. Astrid Bergstrom and any and all authorized representatives as may be designated by her
  623 F.2d 517· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal district court should have dismissed the complaint because the constitutional issue of the child's right to remain in the United States was not ripe for decision, as it was intertwined with ongoing state court custody proceedings.
• Gilmer A. Lange and Audrey M. Lange v. Brinegar
  625 F.2d 812· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the segmentation of the Yakima-Prosser portion of Interstate 1-82 for environmental impact statement purposes was proper under the criteria established in Daly v. Volpe, and that the EIS adequately addressed relevant environmental concerns.
• In re Dutch INN OF Orlando, Ltd. v. Dutch INN OF Orlando, Ltd.
  614 F.2d 504· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-27 ·cited 14×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the sale of assets to a good faith purchaser was completed without a stay pending appeal.
• McTEAGUE v. Sosnowski
  617 F.2d 1016· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) based on abstention principles, as the claim was neither frivolous nor malicious.
• Fontana Aviation, Inc. v. The Cessna Aircraft Co. & Cessna Fin. Corp.
  617 F.2d 478· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because the plaintiff's claims of competitive injury, as part of a broader conspiracy, were not directly barred by Illinois Brick and genuine issues of material fact regarding motive and intent remained.
• Fredericks v. Blake
  382 So. 2d 368· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the taxpayer's complaint for injunctive relief was properly dismissed because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the requested injunction was moot as the tax rolls had already been approved.
• Spokane Cnty. Legal Servs., Inc. v. The Legal Servs. Corp.
  614 F.2d 662· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that while the procedural due process claims were properly dismissed, the claims regarding the merits of the LSC decision (arbitrary and capricious, statutory violation) require remand for review under a r
• Diebold v. Civil Serv. Comm'n OF ST. Louis Cnty.
  611 F.2d 697· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an employee's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not unconstitutionally threatened if he is not forced to choose between surrendering his job or waiving his privilege, even if administrative proceedings consider matters related to criminal
• Navajo Tribal Util. Auth. v. Ariz. Dep't OF Revenue
  608 F.2d 1228· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority's claims because 28 U.S.C. § 1362 does not apply to subordinate tribal entities, and other jurisdictional bases were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1341.
• Am. Motors Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  601 F.2d 1329· 6th Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's pretrial management order constituted a preliminary injunction, making it appealable, and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the FTC before seeking equitable relief.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Rubatex Corp.
  601 F.2d 147· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 14×
  The court should not enforce the Board's order requiring the company to pay $82,000 to union employees as it is an oppressive and punitive remedy.
• McCOURT v. Cal. Sports, Inc.
  600 F.2d 1193· 6th Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court should affirm the district court's grant of injunctive relief against Clause 9A of the National Hockey League's bylaws. This clause, which requires an equalization payment to a player's former club when the player becomes a free agent and is acquired by another club, co
• United States ex rel. Sam Goldman v. The Honorable James H. Meredith
  596 F.2d 1353· 8th Cir.· 1979-04-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that book-entry Treasury bills are subject to garnishment and that injunctive relief is necessary to enforce judgments against them due to their intangible nature. The Treasury is not prohibited from recognizing valid judicial proceedings affecting these securities
• Memphis Tr. Co. v. Bd. OF Governors OF the Fed. Reserve Sys.
  584 F.2d 921· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Bank Holding Company Act provides exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of appeals for challenges to Board orders.
• Braniff Int'l, Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  576 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the mere fact that a constitutional claim might be raised as a defense before a state administrative body does not, by itself, deprive a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction when injunctive and declaratory relief are sought based on the unconstitutiona
• Sacks Bros. Loan Co., Inc. v. Cunningham
  578 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court intervention in state tax matters if a plain, speedy, and efficient state remedy exists, and the five-year statute of limitations applies to actions against public officers for acts in their official capacity.
• Sanders v. M. D. Aircraft Sales, Inc.
  575 F.2d 1086· 3d Cir.· 1978-05-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while federal law governs the recording of aircraft liens and choice of law, state law determines the validity of the lien against a buyer in the ordinary course of business.
• S. Union Prod. Co. & Aztec Oil & Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin. & Frank G. Zarb
  569 F.2d 1147· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1978-01-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) has the authority to regulate gas well condensate and that excluding it from the stripper well exemption was not arbitrary or capricious.
• Mobile Mech. Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Carlough
  566 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while Section 302(e) jurisdiction is limited to prospective relief, it may, in the court's discretion, consider alternative jurisdictional bases not pled below if further factual development is not required.
• Amalgamated Transit Union v. Byrne
  568 F.2d 1025· 3d Cir.· 1977-09-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, as state officials' alleged interference with collective bargaining by threatening to withdraw subsidies violated federal labor policy under the NLRA.
• The United Faculty OF Fla. FEA/United v. Branson
  350 So. 2d 489· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-09-20 ·cited 14×
  Four consolidated cases challenging a faculty union election in Florida's State University System. The court held that signature cards used to establish union interest are exempt from the Public Records Act and that challengers must raise objections timely and with proper standin
• Nat'l Rejectors Indus. v. United Steelworkers OF Am.
  562 F.2d 1069· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-30 ·cited 14×
  The dissent argues that the majority erred in authorizing injunctive relief, as the dispute was procedural and not directly related to an arbitrable issue, and the employer failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• City OF Mishawaka v. Ind. & Mich. Elec. Co.
  560 F.2d 1314· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly asserted jurisdiction over the antitrust claims and properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss and stay the proceedings, as the Federal Power Commission does not have exclusive or primary jurisdiction over the alleged price
• Bama Invs., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  349 So. 2d 207· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-08-02 ·cited 14×
  Bama Investors and Bar-Zac appealed dismissal of their complaint seeking injunctive relief against enforcement of a zoning ordinance. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that equity suits challenging the constitutional validity of zoning ordinances as applied to
• Connell v. Lt. General Robert M. Shoemaker
  555 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a claim for declaratory judgment is not moot, despite the lifting of the challenged sanction, due to the continuing collateral consequences of the Army's finding of discrimination.
• Jerry A. Margolin, M.D. v. Morton F. Plant Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.
  348 So. 2d 57· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-07-08 ·cited 14×
  A private hospital's substantial departure from its own bylaws in revoking staff privileges can state a cause of action for injunctive relief.
• United States v. Nat'l Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs
  555 F.2d 978· D.C. Cir.· 1977-03-14 ·cited 14×
  A professional society's absolute prohibition on competitive bidding for engineering services constitutes price-fixing and a per se violation of the Sherman Act, as it unduly restricts market forces and harms consumers.
• Murray Spooner v. Reubin O'D. Askew
  345 So. 2d 1055· Fla.· 1976-12-22 ·cited 14×
  This case addresses whether Gadsden County taxpayers were denied equal protection by being assessed at full fair market value (85% increase from prior year) while other Florida counties had lower assessment levels approved by the Department of Revenue. The Florida Supreme Court r
• Wilson v. Edelman
  542 F.2d 1260· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims against the federal defendant for lack of jurisdiction, as jurisdictional prerequisites were met and administrative exhaustion was waived by the Secretary's conduct. The court also found that the district court sho
• RoANE v. Mathews
  538 F.2d 852· 9th Cir.· 1976-07-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims because the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Social Security Act.
• Royal Servs., Inc. v. Williams
  334 So. 2d 154· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-06-15 ·cited 14×
  Yes, No. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Potter Stewart wrote the majority opinion, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held police denied Williams his Sixth Amendment rights because the adversary proceeding had already began. The detective’s statements eliciting incri
• Powerine OIL Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin.
  536 F.2d 378· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1976-05-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) did not abuse its discretion in denying Powerine's exception relief from the Entitlements Program, as Powerine failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Lynn v. Biderman
  536 F.2d 820· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that administrative subpoenas can be enforced even if a wrongful purpose is alleged, provided a legitimate purpose exists, and that a protective order was warranted to prevent the administrator from improperly advising customers.
• Berrios v. Inter Am. Univ.
  535 F.2d 1330· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the University's actions in suspending students did not constitute state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as there was insufficient entanglement with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.