Irreparable Damage

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

• Wilson v. Sandstrom
  317 So. 2d 732· Fla.· 1975-07-21 ·cited 102×
  Greyhound kennel owners were incarcerated for civil contempt after refusing to comply with a temporary mandatory injunction requiring them to supply racing greyhounds to a track operator. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the injunction and contempt convictions, holding that a tem
• Oscar T. Johnson et ux. v. Alfred B. Killian et ux.
  157 Fla. 754· Fla.· 1946-07-16 ·cited 81×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree granting a mandatory injunction to remove a cement block garage that had encroached onto the neighboring property, holding that the remedy was too drastic under the circumstances and that the property owners had an adequate remedy at la
• Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  246 F.2d 114· 6th Cir.· 1957-06-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the railroad yard closing dispute was not a labor dispute under the Railway Labor Act or Norris-LaGuardia Act, and thus the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the strike due to irreparable harm to interstate commerce.
• Carney v. Hadley
  32 Fla. 344· Fla.· 1893-06-01 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decree granting a perpetual injunction against trespassers who were boxing pine trees for turpentine production on the complainants' land. The court held that the working of pine trees for turpentine in the customary manner does
• Malt v. Simmons
  405 So. 2d 1018· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-10-21 ·cited 24×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court's denial of a protective order against certain interrogatories in a dispute involving collection practices and emotional distress claims. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, finding the interrogatories
• Graham v. Triangle Publ'ns
  344 F.2d 775· 3d Cir.· 1965-04-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the refusal to grant a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because no imminent threat of irreparable damage was shown.
• Speedry Prods., Inc. v. DRI Mark Prods., Inc.
  271 F.2d 646· 2d Cir.· 1959-11-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion as to source or product, and also failed to show irreparable harm, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Mireille R. Alberti v. Mary Ruth Cruise
  383 F.2d 268· 4th Cir.· 1967-09-14 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the injunction order was invalid due to non-compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) and 65(d), and potentially violated the First Amendment.
• McGEHEE v. Casey
  718 F.2d 1137· D.C. Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 18×
  The court specially concurred, arguing there is no essential difference between upholding a secrecy agreement for classified information and seeking a prepublication injunction for the same information.
• 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.
• W. A. Mack, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  260 F.2d 886· 7th Cir.· 1958-11-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should not have been issued because it granted the plaintiff the actual advantage obtainable in a final decree, and the case should be given precedence for an early trial on the merits.
• 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.
• Henderson v. Burd
  133 F.2d 515· 2d Cir.· 1943-02-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was properly granted regarding sales of nylon hose, but the injunction's scope regarding other hosiery was too broad and needed modification.
• Banco Indus. de Venezuela v. Suarez
  541 So. 2d 1324· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-04-18 ·cited 14×
  This case involves an appeal by Banco Industrial de Venezuela (BIV) against an order dissolving a temporary injunction. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Florida RICO Act provides for preliminary injunctions with less stringent requirements
• Hills Bros. Coffee, Inc. v. Hills Supermarkets, Inc.
  428 F.2d 379· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction against the use of 'Hills' on coffee products was an abuse of discretion, as confusion was likely.
• Nat'l Dairy Prods. Corp. v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Dan R. Warren
  189 So. 2d 811· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-08-23 ·cited 14×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a temporary restraining order and injunction issued against National Dairy Products Corporation in an unfair competition case, holding that the trial court erred in granting the order without notice and without adequate sworn factual
• Barnwell Drilling Co., Inc. v. SUN OIL Co.
  300 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1962-03-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction, as the evidence did not clearly show imminent irreparable harm.
• Woodford v. Seigmore Alexander
  35 Fla. 333· Fla.· 1895-01-01 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision granting an injunction against timber cutting on disputed swamp lands in Marion County. The court held that the complainants, who lacked actual possession of the wild, unoccupied lands, could not obtain equitable relief
• Epstein v. Precision Response Corp.
  883 So. 2d 377· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-09-29 ·cited 12×
  David Epstein, CEO of Precision Response Corporation and non-signatory to a merger agreement containing an arbitration clause, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his complaint to stay arbitration. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court err
• Wooten v. The First Nat'l Bank OF ST. Paul
  490 F.2d 1275· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that appeals from the dismissal of a party and the denial of a three-judge court are not reviewable without a final order, and affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction.
• World Airways, Inc. v. Ne. Airlines, Inc.
  349 F.2d 1007· 1st Cir.· 1965-08-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a sales agency agreement between an air carrier and a travel agency violated the carrier's certificate of authority by engaging in prohibited charter trip arrangements, and that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin such violations.
• McDONALD v. Phinney
  285 F.2d 121· 5th Cir.· 1961-01-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint seeking to enjoin the assessment and collection of federal income taxes.
• Henry v. Greenville Airport Comm'n
  284 F.2d 631· 4th Cir.· 1960-12-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a district court has no discretion to deny a preliminary injunction when a plaintiff clearly establishes denial of a constitutional right by undisputed evidence.
• Burns v. Sanderson
  13 Fla. 381· Fla.· 1869-01-01 ·cited 11×
  John Burns appealed an injunction granted to restrain him from interfering with his wife's separate property placed in trust. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the remedy for alleged interference with the property is at law, not in equity, and that a court of equit
• Med. Facilities Dev., Inc. v. Little ARCH Creek Props., Inc.
  656 So. 2d 1300· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-03-15 ·cited 10×
  Medical Facilities Development, Inc. filed a lis pendens against property owned by Little Arch Creek Properties, Inc. to preserve its claim in a specific performance action, preventing LACPI from completing a sale to another buyer. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed th
• Asa Lloyd Peoples v. The City OF Birmingham
  440 F.2d 1352· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-09 ·cited 10×
  Federal injunctive relief is inappropriate without specific allegations of irreparable harm like bad faith prosecution or harassment.
• Schlosser v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
  250 F.2d 478· 7th Cir.· 1958-01-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction requiring payment of disputed funds before a final determination of the merits is generally not warranted, especially when the underlying claim is controverted.
• Arco Fuel OIL Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  427 F.2d 517· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a temporary injunction, as the balance of convenience did not warrant interlocutory relief.
• N. Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Inc.
  130 So. 2d 894· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-05-25 ·cited 7×
  North Dade Water Company and the City of North Miami Beach discharged sewage effluent from a treatment plant into lakes owned by Adken Land Company, creating a private nuisance and trespass. The trial court permanently enjoined this discharge, and the appellate court affirmed, ho
• Carnegie v. Tedder
  698 So. 2d 1310· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-09-05 ·cited 6×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order closing civil case files, holding that a party seeking closure in a civil proceeding must satisfy the stringent Barron test, which requires showing that matters are peripheral rather than inherent to the litigati
• United States v. Barrows
  404 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 6×
  A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief to prevent irreparable damage to government land, even if the validity of a mining claim on that land is still pending administrative determination.
• Heron v. City & Cnty. OF Denver
  317 F.2d 309· 10th Cir.· 1963-05-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment and in finding no irreparable damage, thus properly denying injunctive relief.
• Welcome Wagon, Inc. v. Morris
  224 F.2d 693· 4th Cir.· 1955-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court held that the restrictive covenant was void and unenforceable because it was unreasonable in duration and geographic scope, and thus affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief.
• Boston Wool Trade Ass'n v. Snyder
  161 F.2d 648· D.C. Cir.· 1947-05-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the action because the exclusive jurisdiction for customs duty disputes lies with the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
• Swensen v. Lofton
  457 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-07-06 ·cited 5×
  This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. The appellate court reversed the injunction order, holding that the appellees' application failed to allege sufficient facts to establish irreparable harm as required for equitable relief, and that the
• Abernathy v. Patterson
  295 F.2d 452· 5th Cir.· 1961-10-31 ·cited 5×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and had an adequate remedy at law through state court appeals, thus injunctive relief was not warranted.
• A. B. C. Bus. Forms, Inc. v. The Honorable Harold B. Spaet
  201 So. 2d 890· Fla.· 1967-07-19 ·cited 4×
  Florida Statute § 11.111, which mandates continuances for legislators, is unconstitutional when applied to cases seeking emergency injunctive relief due to irreparable damage.
• Gustafson's Dairy, Inc. v. State
  189 So. 2d 814· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-08-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the temporary restraining order was erroneously issued against both distributor and supermarket defendants due to insufficient allegations and lack of showing of irreparable harm.
• Noble v. Erice E. McNEAL and Jimmie S. McNeal
  179 So. 2d 126· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-10-14 ·cited 4×
  The court denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review an interlocutory order that refused to strike affirmative defenses from a mortgagee's answer in a contract dispute. The court held that certiorari is unavailable for interlocutory orders unless they involve venu
• Mrs. Ethel Mae Coxsey v. Najeeb Hallaby
  334 F.2d 286· 10th Cir.· 1964-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the suit was not against the United States without consent and presented genuine issues of material fact, thus it was not ripe for summary judgment.
• Camp v. Herzog
  190 F.2d 605· D.C. Cir.· 1951-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a lawyer must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention to enjoin an NLRB disciplinary proceeding.
• Food v. Smiley
  164 F.2d 922· 3d Cir.· 1947-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, finding that the state board's contention of concurrent jurisdiction was resolved by a subsequent state supreme court ruling.
• Palm Beach Commerce Ctr. Associated, Ltd. v. Walker
  598 So. 2d 165· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-04-29 ·cited 2×
  A taxpayer seeking to enjoin the issuance of tax certificates pending a challenge to property valuation must demonstrate the good faith of their partial tax payment.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Seminole Asphalt Ref., Inc.
  269 So. 2d 28· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The United Steelworkers appeals a trial court's temporary injunction issued without notice against union picketing at Seminole Asphalt Refining's plant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the unverified petition and affidavit were legally insufficient to support an ex par
• Goldman v. Henry's Drive IN, Inc.
  314 F.2d 162· 7th Cir.· 1963-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction when the plaintiff failed to present evidence to support his allegations despite the defendant's verified answer denying them.
• Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Barrow
  9 Fla. Supp. 184· Nassau Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1956-07-12 ·cited 2×
  American Telephone & Telegraph Company sought a temporary injunction to prevent property owner John G. Barrow from interfering with AT&T's underground cable facilities and easement rights on his land in Nassau County, Florida. The trial court granted the injunction, finding that
• Harris v. Britton
  218 F.2d 45· D.C. Cir.· 1954-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the District Court's judgments, upholding the deputy commissioner's findings and orders regarding employer status and compensation defaults.
• Harris v. Briscoe
  212 F.2d 619· D.C. Cir.· 1954-04-22 ·cited 2×
  An employer is entitled to supersedeas of a judgment entered under § 18 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as in civil suits at common law, unless another provision of the Act expressly forbids it.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Feagin
  90 Fla. 62· Fla.· 1925-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed interlocutory orders granting a temporary restraining order and denying dissolution of that order in a property dispute between a railroad company and a landowner. The court held that the complainant failed to allege the necessary prerequisites
• Warrington v. Patel
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-30
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion to appoint a receiver or conservator.