Interlocutory Injunction

127 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Tampa S. R.R. Co.
  101 Fla. 468· Fla.· 1931-05-06 ·cited 172×
  Seaboard Air Line Railway sought to enjoin Tampa Southern Railroad from occupying its right-of-way and tracks known as Hog Creek Spur in Sarasota. After an injunction was granted, Tampa Southern violated it by laying tracks across the spur in 1928. The trial court discharged the
• Bennet F. Schauffler v. Local 1291
  292 F.2d 182· 3d Cir.· 1961-06-20 ·cited 75×
  The court affirmed the injunction based on reasonable cause but reversed the contempt finding due to insufficient evidence.
• Gavlik Constr. Co. v. H. F. Campbell Co.
  526 F.2d 777· 3d Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the parties' contracts provided for consolidated arbitration, and that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by filing a third-party complaint or seeking consolidation.
• United States v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
  320 F.2d 509· 3d Cir.· 1963-06-05 ·cited 52×
  The court held that interlocutory orders granting injunctions are appealable to the courts of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), even in antitrust cases, unless a direct appeal to the Supreme Court is specifically provided.
• Mora v. Mejias
  206 F.2d 377· 1st Cir.· 1953-07-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction because the plaintiff had not shown with reasonable certainty that he would ultimately prevail.
• Hoover Motor Express Co., Inc. v. Teamsters
  217 F.2d 49· 6th Cir.· 1954-11-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a stay order pending arbitration was improperly granted because the collective bargaining agreement did not provide for arbitration of the specific dispute, which was a violation of a no-strike clause.
• Allen v. Hawley
  6 Fla. 142· Fla.· 1855-01-01 ·cited 42×
  This case establishes that multiple owners of a merchant vessel hold their interests as partners in a copartnership rather than as tenants in common when the vessel is purchased with partnership funds and is subservient to a partnership business venture. The Florida Supreme Court
• Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't OF Energy
  644 F.2d 969· 3d Cir.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 38×
  The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the government's revised index and affidavit submitted shortly before a hearing, and erred by ordering immediate production of documents based on an inadequate initial index. The court
• Stuart M. Christhilf, Jr., M.D. v. The Annapolis Emergency Hosp. Ass'n, Inc.
  496 F.2d 174· 4th Cir.· 1974-04-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the hospital board denied the physician procedural due process by limiting his ability to defend against past infractions considered as 'historical background' rather than examining their merits.
• Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler
  287 F.2d 43· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a district court abused its discretion by enjoining proceedings in another district after the first court had already considered and denied motions regarding venue and transfer.
• Johnson v. Butler Bros.
  162 F.2d 87· 8th Cir.· 1947-06-11 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, by stating actions may be 'maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction,' grants employees the right to prosecute their claims to final judgment in the state court where filed, preventing removal to federal court.
• Tomlinson v. Smith
  128 F.2d 808· 7th Cir.· 1942-04-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the injunction and declaratory judgment were properly allowed because the plaintiff, as a trustee protecting a superior lien, is not subject to the statutory prohibition against enjoining tax collection, nor the Declaratory Judgment Act's exception for federal
• Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. United States
  433 F.2d 212· 8th Cir.· 1970-10-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that shippers are entitled to restitution for excessive rates charged during the period of the temporary restraining order, as the ICC's cancellation order rendered the increased tariffs unlawful.
• Copra v. José A. Suro
  236 F.2d 107· 1st Cir.· 1956-07-06 ·cited 34×
  The denial of a temporary injunction was not an improvident exercise of discretion because of doubts regarding federal jurisdiction under § 301 and the potential for the controversy to be resolved in a prior, more appropriate case.
• Simmons v. Block
  782 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the FmHA's acceptance of a lower cash bid over a higher credit bid based on an unwritten policy was arbitrary and capricious, the district court erred in ordering the property sold to the higher bidder. The case must be remanded for proper adherence to r
• Oliver v. Sch. Dist. OF the City OF Kalamazoo
  448 F.2d 635· 6th Cir.· 1971-08-30 ·cited 24×
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Dade Cnty. Classroom Teachers' Ass'n, Inc. v. Rubin
  238 So. 2d 284· Fla.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion to quash a contempt rule nisi against the Dade County Classroom Teachers' Association for violating a temporary injunction against a teacher work stoppage. The court held that public employees have no constitutional right
• Burton v. Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc.
  244 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1957-04-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as serious legal questions were presented and the injunction served to preserve the status quo pending final determination.
• Brown v. E. States Corp.
  181 F.2d 26· 4th Cir.· 1950-04-04 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the corporate reorganization plan because he suffered no injury and the plan had expired.
• Trans-Pacific Freight Conference OF Japan v. Fed. Mar. Bd.
  302 F.2d 875· D.C. Cir.· 1962-04-12 ·cited 22×
  The Federal Maritime Board does not have the statutory authority to issue interim cease and desist orders to maintain the status quo pending a final determination of a complaint.
• Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co. & All Purpose Spreader Co.
  239 F.2d 774· 6th Cir.· 1957-01-11 ·cited 22×
  Venue is proper in the district where a corporation is licensed to do business, and the first-filed action is determined by the filing date, not service date.
• Brown v. Quinlan, Inc.
  138 F.2d 228· 7th Cir.· 1943-10-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint without a hearing on the merits and in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying a preliminary injunction.
• Am. Ins. Co. v. Scheufler
  129 F.2d 143· 8th Cir.· 1942-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the decrees distributing impounded funds to policyholders, finding the insurance companies were not entitled to the funds and had participated in fraud.
• Shannon v. Retail Clerks
  128 F.2d 553· 7th Cir.· 1942-05-12 ·cited 22×
  An order granting a temporary injunction must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(d) and 52(a) by setting forth reasons, specific acts restrained, and findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• City of Jacksonville v. Giller
  102 Fla. 92· Fla.· 1931-06-23 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld an interlocutory injunction protecting the Gillers' possession of real property and buildings they occupied under a lease, holding that the City of Jacksonville could not interfere with their actual possession without following proper legal proced
• Atl. Co. v. Citizens ICE & Cold Storage Co.
  178 F.2d 453· 5th Cir.· 1949-12-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the local price-cutting war substantially affected interstate commerce or constituted an attempt to monopolize, thus reversing the injunction.
• Meiselman v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp.
  180 F.2d 94· 4th Cir.· 1950-02-09 ·cited 20×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of an interlocutory injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.
• Bowles v. Russell Packing Co.
  140 F.2d 354· 7th Cir.· 1944-02-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a temporary injunction was insufficient because it lacked specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
• Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A.
  205 F.2d 944· 9th Cir.· 1953-06-30 ·cited 19×
  In the absence of a posted bond or security, damages cannot be recovered for the wrongful issuance of a temporary injunction, even if granted without just cause.
• Piedmont Aviation, Inc. v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  416 F.2d 633· 4th Cir.· 1969-09-29 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the interlocutory injunction against the pilot strike, provided the status quo is maintained, and remanded for determination of whether the dispute is major or minor.
• Magnesium Casting Co. v. Hoban
  401 F.2d 516· 1st Cir.· 1968-09-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the employer waived its right to challenge the election by complying with the Board's order, even after a precedent invalidated the order's basis.
• Idlewild BON Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Rohan
  289 F.2d 426· 2d Cir.· 1961-04-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from orders entered by single district judges, even if those orders involve injunctions against state statutes, to determine if a three-judge court was required.
• Greylock Broad. Co. v. United States & Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  231 F.2d 748· D.C. Cir.· 1956-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The court granted a stay, preventing the FCC from processing applications for VHF Channel 10 pending the outcome of a deintermixture proceeding.
• Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Tureaud
  225 F.2d 434· 5th Cir.· 1955-08-23 ·cited 18×
• O'Malley v. United States
  128 F.2d 676· 8th Cir.· 1942-06-01 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge holds that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to summarily punish the appellants for contempt, as their conduct, though obstructive, did not occur in the court's presence or near enough to disrupt its proceedings.
• Anderson v. Tower Amusement Co.
  118 Fla. 437· Fla.· 1935-02-16 ·cited 18×
  Marie W. Anderson sought injunctive relief to prevent Tower Amusement Company and D. V. Marquis from interfering with her tenant's possession of leased premises in violation of a restrictive covenant. The Florida Supreme Court granted a constitutional writ of injunction on appeal
• Mazanec v. N. Judson-San Pierre Sch. Corp.
  750 F.2d 625· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 16×
  A stay for Pullman abstention is appealable under the final-judgment rule, even if the federal suit is not entirely dismissed, because it can cause irreparable harm through delay.
• Bd. of Sup'rs of La. State Univ. & Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Tureaud
  207 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1953-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The district judge properly determined that a three-judge court was not required because the case presented a factual issue of discrimination, not a substantial constitutional question regarding a state statute.
• Sales Affiliates, Inc. v. Nat'l Mineral Co.
  172 F.2d 608· 7th Cir.· 1949-02-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Winkel patent and the Evans reissue patent are invalid due to anticipation by prior art and lack of inventive step.
• Standard Dredging Corp. v. Henderson
  150 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1945-06-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an award of death benefits must specify that payments are to continue only during dependency, and that the record lacked sufficient findings on the parents' dependency and its duration.
• M. Witmark & Sons v. Fred Fisher Music Co., Inc.
  125 F.2d 949· 2d Cir.· 1942-02-11 ·cited 16×
  A copyright holder may assign their expectancy of the renewal right, as the statute does not explicitly forbid such assignments.
• Strachan Shipping Co. v. Hollis
  460 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the longshoreman's claim was not time-barred because the initial informal claim remained pending until a formal adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner, and the carrier's interpretation of modification provisions was erroneous.
• United States v. Am. Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.
  388 F.2d 201· 3d Cir.· 1967-12-18 ·cited 14×
  A district court should not enjoin proceedings in a coordinate district court, especially after the latter has denied similar relief, as proper procedure involves appeal or application to the appellate court.
• A. v. Caro vs. The Pensacola City Co. et. al.
  19 Fla. 766· Fla.· 1883-01-01 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an equitable decree establishing the Pensacola City Company's title to land near Pensacola and granting a perpetual injunction against defendant Caro's interference, while modifying the decree to the extent it purported to bind non-party heirs o
• Addressograph-Multigraph Corp. v. Am. Expansion Bolt & MFG. Co.
  124 F.2d 706· 7th Cir.· 1941-11-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal courts must apply state law, including state conflict of laws rules, in diversity cases, and under Illinois law, the plaintiff's claim for unfair competition based on misappropriation of a business system failed.
• Hannan v. City OF Haverhill
  120 F.2d 87· 1st Cir.· 1941-05-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the denial of an interlocutory injunction was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm or applied for a permit.
• Lorenz v. City of Hollywood
  144 Fla. 324· Fla.· 1940-10-01 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when parties initiate an equity action involving a public right of way dispute, the court of equity may retain jurisdiction and adjudicate all related rights, including legal claims ordinarily cognizable only at law, rather than remitting part
• Badgley v. Santacroce
  815 F.2d 888· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to set forth adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its order allowing a temporary increase in the prison population cap.
• Riess v. Murchison
  384 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1967-10-24 ·cited 10×
  A party's alleged repudiation of contractual obligations, short of repudiating the arbitration clause itself, does not preclude them from seeking arbitration under California law.
• United States v. Palmer
  356 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1966-02-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the registrars' excuses for closing their offices were a sham and that the denial of the preliminary injunction was error.