Irreparable Harm

2,255 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston
  655 So. 2d 91· Fla.· 1995-05-11 ·cited 494×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a trial court's discovery order compelling production of internal insurance documents in a routine uninsured motorist benefits claim is subject to certiorari review. The Court held that irrelevant discovery alone does not automatically
• State v. Pettis
  520 So. 2d 250· Fla.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 398×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts of appeal regarding whether the state may petition for common law certiorari to review pretrial orders in criminal cases. The Court held that while the state cannot use certiorari to circumvent the absence of a
• Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C.
  2001 WL 1850837· M.D. Fla.· 2001-03-15 ·cited 353×
  The court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, agreeing with the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of most of their claims.
• Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc.
  658 So. 2d 646· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-07-28 ·cited 322×
  Parkway Bank sought a writ of certiorari to strike a demand for jury trial filed by defendants who had signed agreements containing express waivers of jury trial rights. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for lack of certiorari jurisdiction, holding that
• Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  259 F.2d 921· D.C. Cir.· 1958-08-29 ·cited 289×
  The court held that while the petitioner likely had a right to intervene, a stay pending appeal was not warranted due to inadequate showings of irreparable harm and the public interest, and the existence of adequate appellate remedies.
• The Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGUIRE
  670 So. 2d 153· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-03-20 ·cited 233×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified the procedural framework for reviewing nonfinal pretrial orders in civil cases through petitions for common law certiorari. The court established that such petitions must first satisfy a jurisdictional requirement of demonstrating irr
• Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC
  99 So. 3d 450· Fla.· 2012-09-27 ·cited 199×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision quashing a discovery order that compelled production of financial documents. The Court held that overbreadth alone is not a sufficient basis for certiorari relief from discovery orders; rather, a par
• United States v. Jefferson Cnty.
  720 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 192×
  The court held that the Birmingham Firefighters Association members' motion to intervene was untimely and dismissed their appeal, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to white male firefighters due to a failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., Inc.
  206 F.2d 738· 2d Cir.· 1953-06-30 ·cited 192×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff raised serious questions regarding a Section 7 Clayton Act violation and the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the plaintiff.
• Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
  596 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 190×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious basis for relief by not showing a violation of the exclusive distributorship contract or sufficient threat of irreparable injury.
• Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  749 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-31 ·cited 189×
  The court held that the standard for granting and reviewing preliminary injunctions is complex and often inconsistently applied, but requires balancing irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and public interest.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher
  733 So. 2d 993· Fla.· 1999-04-22 ·cited 186×
  Allstate Insurance Company challenges a discovery order requiring it to disclose information about its financial relationship with expert witness Biodynamics Research Corporation. The Florida Supreme Court holds that parties may be required to disclose the extent of their relatio
• Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc.
  640 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 179×
  The court adopts a new, third test for granting preliminary injunctions, aiming to provide clarity for district judges.
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. SAN Perdido Ass'n, Inc.
  104 So. 3d 344· Fla.· 2012-11-15 ·cited 175×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts regarding whether Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, a state-created entity, could seek interlocutory review of an order denying its claim of immunity from bad faith insurance litigation. The Court held tha
• Polaski v. Heckler
  751 F.2d 943· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-31 ·cited 171×
  The court improperly waived the exhaustion of administrative remedies for class members alleging disabling pain who did not pursue timely appeals.
• Ne. Fla. Chapter OF The Ass'n OF Gen. Contractors OF Am. v. City OF Jacksonville
  896 F.2d 1283· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-02 ·cited 140×
  An association lacks representative standing if its members have not alleged specific, actual or threatened injury sufficient for standing.
• Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd.
  604 F.2d 200· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-14 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders' uniform is a valid trademark and its use in the film "Debbie Does Dallas" constitutes infringement, dilution, and unfair competition, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. City OF NEW York
  501 F.2d 639· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-28 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the appealability of an order granting class action status should be determined by weighing the costs of piecemeal review against the danger of denying justice, rather than by strict adherence to a three-pronged test.
• Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens
  97 So. 2d 693· Fla.· 1957-10-25 ·cited 131×
  This Florida Supreme Court case addresses whether an accident defendant must disclose automobile liability insurance policy limits during discovery. The court holds that policy limits are not proper subjects of discovery under Florida civil procedure rules, as they are irrelevant
• E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A. v. Shaw-Ross Int'l Imports, Inc.
  756 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 127×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction by misapplying the law regarding likelihood of confusion and abandonment, and that a strong showing of infringement warranted granting the injunction.
• Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Rom W. Powell
  262 So. 2d 881· Fla.· 1972-04-05 ·cited 126×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld statutes authorizing public nuisance abatement for premises used for illegal drug activity, rejecting constitutional challenges to their vagueness and scope. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss in an action
• Lawson Prods., Inc. v. Avnet, Inc.
  782 F.2d 1429· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction, affirming that preliminary injunction decisions involve significant discretion for the district judge and are reviewed with deference.
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.
  690 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the irreparable injury standard and finding no facial falseness in the advertisement, thus reversing the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Brown v. Campion
  757 So. 2d 535· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-03-23 ·cited 110×
  The First District Court of Appeal reversed its previous decision converting Charlie Brown Jr.'s appeal into a certiorari petition, holding that an order denying a plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil case is neither reviewable by writ of certiorari nor imm
• Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz
  670 F.2d 440· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 104×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) should be construed narrowly, limiting appellate jurisdiction to review only independently appealable orders, not ancillary ones.
• A. O. Smith Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  530 F.2d 515· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-11 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm in the record before the district court, warranting reversal of the preliminary injunctions.
• Arista Records, Inc. v. Beker Enters., Inc.
  298 F. Supp. 2d 1310· S.D. Fla.· 2003-12-19 ·cited 99×
  The court granted final default judgment and a permanent injunction against defendants for copyright infringement, awarding statutory damages and attorney's fees.
• Gulf & W. Indus., Inc. v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  476 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-12 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the consummation of a tender offer, as the plaintiff (A&P) demonstrated a probability of success on the merits regarding antitrust and securities law violations.
• Covey OIL Co. v. Cont'l OIL Co. & Texaco, Inc.
  340 F.2d 993· 10th Cir.· 1965-01-21 ·cited 96×
  The court held that an order modifying and enforcing subpoenas duces tecum against non-party witnesses, who claim irreparable harm from disclosure of trade secrets, is an appealable final decision collateral to the main action.
• United States v. Lambert
  695 F.2d 536· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 93×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a prerequisite for such relief.
• Armstrong v. Clovis McALPIN
  625 F.2d 433· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-20 ·cited 92×
• Triebwasser & Katz v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  535 F.2d 1356· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion and committed a clear mistake of law by granting a preliminary injunction without a sufficient showing of irreparable harm, which is a prerequisite for such relief, especially in antitrust cases.
• The Del. & Hudson Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union
  450 F.2d 603· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-31 ·cited 92×
  The court held that after the Railway Labor Act's procedures are exhausted and bargaining reaches an impasse, a union may lawfully conduct selective strikes against some carriers to exert economic pressure for a national agreement.
• Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin
  482 So. 2d 486· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-01-21 ·cited 91×
  This case addresses whether an employer seeking to enforce non-competition covenants is entitled to a temporary injunction when the employer has itself breached the employment contract. The court held that an employer's material breach of an employment contract is a relevant fact
• Donovan v. Loran W. Robbins
  752 F.2d 1170· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred in not approving the settlement agreement because ERISA permits equitable contribution among co-trustees, and the comparative fault rule discussed by the majority is inapplicable and unnecessary dicta.
• Am. Hosp. Supply Corp. & Am. v. Mueller
  780 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 87×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding that the distributor demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm due to the supplier's insolvency and that the district court properly balanced the harms.
• Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Callaway
  524 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-09 ·cited 87×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision regarding the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and reverse the majority's grant of injunctive relief.
• Jack Kahn Music Co., Inc. v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co.
  604 F.2d 755· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 86×
  A preliminary injunction freezing a dealership into a non-revocable status is improper when the dealer fails to demonstrate a probability of irreparable injury and the balance of hardships does not decidedly tip in their favor.
• Oburn v. Shapp
  521 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction sought by white applicants challenging the Pennsylvania State Police's minority hiring goals.
• Stephens v. Geoghegan
  702 So. 2d 517· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-10-17 ·cited 84×
  Police officers Stephens, Upman, and Worlds challenged a circuit court's denial of their motions for summary judgment based on immunity claims in a suit by retired officer Geoghegan, who was discharged after an officer-involved shooting but later reinstated through arbitration. T
• In re Mason v. Integrity Ins. Co. & Sherwood & Roberts, Inc.
  709 F.2d 1313· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 83×
  The court held that an order for relief in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding is a final, appealable order, and that the debtor waived his right to object to the order based on an insufficient number of petitioning creditors.
• The State OF NEW York v. The Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
  550 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 80×
  The court held that a violation of NEPA does not automatically constitute irreparable harm, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a sufficient threat of irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed'n, Inc.
  498 So. 2d 997· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-12-10 ·cited 79×
  Peter Hiles and Auto Bahn Sales and Leasing, Inc. appealed from an interlocutory order granting a temporary mandatory injunction that prevented disposal of corporate assets. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the appellees failed to demonstrate the prerequ
• Leslie Pearlstein, M.D. v. Malunney
  500 So. 2d 585· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-12-10 ·cited 79×
  Defendants in a medical malpractice action sought certiorari to overturn a trial court order declaring Florida's prefiling notice requirement for medical malpractice claims unconstitutional. The appellate court held the statute constitutional and that the prefiling notice is a ma
• Emilio Pizzarello v. United States
  408 F.2d 579· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-18 ·cited 79×
  The court held that a jeopardy tax assessment based on illegally seized evidence and calculated using an arbitrary and unsupported method is invalid and may be enjoined, especially when the taxpayer faces irreparable harm and lacks an adequate legal remedy due to Fifth Amendment
• In re Cont'l Inv. Corp.
  637 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-10-31 ·cited 78×
  The court held that denials of attorney disqualification motions in bankruptcy proceedings are generally not immediately appealable as of right, either under the Bankruptcy Act or the collateral order doctrine.
• A Quaker Action Grp. v. Hickel
  421 F.2d 1111· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-24 ·cited 77×
  The court held that while the government has a paramount interest in presidential safety, it must provide factual support for claims that demonstrations threaten it, rather than relying on mere assertion. The preliminary injunction was modified to require advance notice of demons
• Yardley v. Ina Marie Albu
  826 So. 2d 467· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-09-20 ·cited 72×
  The Yardleys appeal a trial court's temporary injunction favoring their neighbors, the Albus, regarding use of a five-foot easement on the Yardleys' property. The appellate court reversed, holding that the injunction order failed to comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Ru
• Commercial Consultants Corp. & Linene Woods, Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. Reg.
  363 So. 2d 1162· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-11-06 ·cited 72×
  A temporary cease and desist order issued without prior notice or hearing is invalid if it does not recite with particularity the specific facts demonstrating an immediate danger to the public interest.
• Unicon Mgmt. Corp. v. Koppers Co., Inc.
  366 F.2d 199· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-07 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to Koppers, as it was justified to prevent irreparable harm and preserve the status quo pending trial.