Irreparable Harm

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

• Fernandez-Andrew v. Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co.
  208 So. 3d 835· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-01-25 ·cited 16×
  The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the trial court's order abating her declaratory judgment action.
• Paton v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  190 So. 3d 1047· Fla.· 2016-03-24 ·cited 16×
  Kelly Patón, injured in a car accident, sued her insurer GEICO for bad faith after it denied her full underinsured motorist claim. She sought discovery of GEICO's billing records to support her attorney's fees claim. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District's decisi
• Burtoff v. Alfred Tauber to Laszlo N. Tauber
  85 So. 3d 1182· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-04-18 ·cited 16×
  Burtoff challenges an order denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing and to dissolve an injunction freezing his bank account. The Florida appellate court reversed because the injunction was issued without proper evidentiary hearing procedures and lacked required factual find
• Eldon v. Perrin
  78 So. 3d 737· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-02-08 ·cited 16×
  Charles Eldon appealed a temporary injunction granted against him. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed because the injunction order lacked sufficient factual findings supporting each element of the four-part injunction test and failed to set an appropriate bond a
• City OF Oldsmar v. Kimmins Contracting Corp.
  805 So. 2d 1091· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-02-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order granting limited discovery by writ of certiorari because the petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• SSJ Mercy Health Sys., Inc. v. Posey
  756 So. 2d 177· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-04-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance when the lead attorney's wife had a terminal illness, forcing a choice between representation and care.
• Lunceford v. Fla. Cent. R.R. Co., Inc.
  728 So. 2d 1239· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-04-09 ·cited 16×
  A party has the right to have a videographer present at an independent medical examination unless a valid, case-specific reason is presented demonstrating disruption and unavailability of other specialists.
• State v. Cont'l CAR Servs., Inc.
  650 So. 2d 173· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-02-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove irreparable harm and the absence of an adequate remedy at law, which are necessary elements for a temporary injunction.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNEIL-P.P.C., Inc.
  973 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the term 'PM' is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning, and that the trade dress for 'Tylenol PM' is not likely to cause consumer confusion with 'Excedrin PM'.
• McNEIL-P.C.C., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
  938 F.2d 1544· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a plaintiff can prove a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act by demonstrating that the defendant's own studies are unreliable, without conducting its own independent studies.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. P*I*E Nationwide, Inc.
  894 F.2d 887· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-30 ·cited 16×
  A court of appeals may exercise equitable discretion when asked to enforce a National Labor Relations Board order, but equitable defenses like laches require unreasonable delay and resulting harm, which were not present here.
• Modern Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc.
  871 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a choice of law provision in a franchise agreement may be unenforceable if it violates a fundamental public policy of the state with a materially greater interest in the transaction, even if the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties.
• Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ross Bicycles, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1176· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by presuming consumer confusion from intentional copying and by deemphasizing labeling as a matter of law due to secondary meaning.
• White v. Carlucci
  862 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 16×
  A Title VII plaintiff must independently establish a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction, even in cases involving federal employees, and mere reassignment does not constitute irreparable harm.
• Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. Roger Marrero, M.D.
  536 So. 2d 1094· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-11-18 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Board of Medicine appealed a circuit court order that permanently enjoined the Board from proceeding on Dr. Marrero's medical license application after he withdrew it. The appellate court reversed, holding that Dr. Marrero was required to exhaust administrative remedi
• Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro
  834 F.2d 326· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while prisoners have a Fourteenth Amendment right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain an abortion, the Eighth Amendment does not mandate state provision of elective, medically unnecessary abortions.
• ODC Commc'ns Corp. v. Wenruth Invs.
  826 F.2d 509· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the partial summary judgment order was not a final decision under Rule 54(b) due to substantial factual overlap with remaining claims and counterclaims.
• Smith v. Bloom
  506 So. 2d 1173· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-05-13 ·cited 16×
  This case addresses the scope of discovery in a dissolution of marriage action against a third-party cohabitant of the husband. The court held that while a cohabitant's financial records related to transactions with the husband may be discoverable, the discovery demand was overbr
• Gelco Corp. v. Coniston P'rs
  811 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Coniston failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. Constitutional issues regarding the Minnesota Control Share Acquisition Act were deemed moot.
• Asseo v. PAN Am. Grain Co., Inc.
  805 F.2d 23· 1st Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA, finding reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred and that injunctive relief was just and proper.
• Educ. Testing Servs. v. Katzman
  793 F.2d 533· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's preliminary injunction was supported by a likelihood of success on the merits for copyright infringement, despite procedural deficiencies in the findings of fact.
• Molex v. Nolen
  759 F.2d 474· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and injunction, modifying only a minor aspect of the injunction's wording regarding Tandy affiliates.
• Reed v. Heckler
  756 F.2d 779· 10th Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were sufficiently collateral to their entitlement claims and that the exhaustion requirement could be waived due to potential irreparab
• In re Ford Motor Co.
  751 F.2d 274· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 16×
  The court denied Ford's petition for a writ of mandamus, finding that the denial of a motion to disqualify counsel is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying such a drastic remedy.
• Mitchell v. Cuomo
  748 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Eighth Amendment violations.
• Roberts v. VAN Buren Pub. Schs.
  731 F.2d 523· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the teachers were unlikely to suffer irreparable harm because reinstatement and backpay would be adequate remedies if they prevailed on the merits.
• Granville v. Paulina Delp Granville
  445 So. 2d 362· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-01-26 ·cited 16×
  In this Florida family law case, the court granted a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's interlocutory orders denying the husband's motions to strike alimony modification requests and for a protective order limiting financial discovery. The court held that lump sum alimon
• Sheehan v. Purolator Courier Corp. & Purolator, Inc.
  676 F.2d 877· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 16×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief against employer retaliation while a Title VII charge is pending before the EEOC, even before a right-to-sue letter has been issued.
• Mass. Coal. OF Citizens With Disabilities v. Civil Def. Agency & Off. OF Emergency Preparedness OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  649 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Rittmiller v. Blex OIL, Inc.
  624 F.2d 857· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief on both antitrust and franchise claims due to insufficient showings of irreparable harm, decisive balance of hardships, or violation of the Minnesota franchise statute.
• United States v. Siemens Corp. & G. D. Searle & Co.
  621 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Siemens' potential entry into the nuclear medical equipment market.
• Telvest, Inc. v. Junie L. Bradshaw
  618 F.2d 1029· 4th Cir.· 1980-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court improvidently issued a preliminary injunction because it failed to properly balance the hardships, consider the harm to other shareholders, and adequately assess the potential conflict between state and federal law.
• Kechijian v. Califano
  621 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1980-03-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and federal question jurisdiction was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h).
• The F. & M. Schaefer Corp. & the F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.
  597 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the proposed acquisition of notes by a competitor likely violated antitrust laws and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the injunction.
• Modern Controls, Inc. v. Andreadakis
  578 F.2d 1264· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the covenant not to compete was likely enforceable, supported by independent consideration and the potential for irreparable harm.
• City OF Hallandale & Richard C. Fox v. Inglima
  346 So. 2d 84· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-04-07 ·cited 16×
  Two consolidated appeals challenging the trial court's injunctive orders requiring reinstatement of dismissed police officers. The appellate court reversed both injunctive orders, finding they violated procedural requirements for temporary injunctions (lack of bond, premature res
• Handwerger v. Ginsberg
  519 F.2d 1339· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the district court's order permitting the suit to proceed as a class action because the order was interlocutory and did not meet the criteria for an exceptional circumstances appeal.
• Jerome v. Viviano Food Co., Inc.
  489 F.2d 965· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-10 ·cited 16×
  A plaintiff cannot file suit in federal court under Title VII until administrative remedies have been exhausted and the EEOC has issued a right-to-sue letter.
• United States Servicemen's Fund v. Eastland
  488 F.2d 1252· D.C. Cir.· 1973-08-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Senate Subcommittee's subpoena for financial records of the USSF was a valid exercise of investigative power, not an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights.
• BOB Jones Univ. v. Connally
  472 F.2d 903· 4th Cir.· 1973-01-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the strict test for enjoining tax collection should not be applied in this case, potentially raising constitutional questions about the tax code.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. ex rel. J. Shane Creamer v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  469 F.2d 1387· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Commonwealth failed to make a strong showing of prevailing on the merits and suffering irreparable injury, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Murray v. Kunzig
  462 F.2d 871· D.C. Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge maintains their original position, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation of precedent and its implications for judicial oversight of the civil service.
• Armour & Co. v. Freeman
  304 F.2d 404· D.C. Cir.· 1962-02-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary of Agriculture's regulation requiring genuine hams with added moisture to be labeled "Imitation Ham" was arbitrary and capricious on its face, forcing a violation of the Meat Inspection Act.
• People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-02-03 ·cited 15×
  An order requiring interim payment on a partial judgment while leaving factually related claims unresolved is not appealable as a final order but is reviewable by petition for writ of certiorari.
• Chessler v. ALL Am. Semiconductor, Inc.
  225 So. 3d 849· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-11-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the order disqualifying counsel did not meet the high standard for certiorari review, thus denying the petition.
• Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n & Benjamin G. Johnson v. Jeffrey
  178 So. 3d 460· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-10-15 ·cited 15×
  Officer Benjamin Johnson and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission sought certiorari review of a trial court's denial of their motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and sovereign immunity, respectively. The court granted Johnson's petition in pa
• Fla. Dep't of Revenue by v. Alletag
  156 So. 3d 1110· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-02-09 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Department of Revenue sought certiorari review of an order requiring paternity testing in a child support proceeding where the alleged father had previously signed the child's birth certificate and executed an affidavit of paternity. The court held that paternity test
• Flores v. Sanchez
  137 So. 3d 1104· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-03-26 ·cited 15×
  Carlos Flores sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling him to submit to paternity testing in an action brought by Vanessa Sanchez, the biological mother, seeking to disestablish his presumed paternity based on fraud and duress. The Florida District Court of Appe
• Tonia Root v. Balfour Beatty Constr. LLC
  132 So. 3d 867· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-02-05 ·cited 15×
  Root sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of Facebook posts and personal information. The Second District Court of Appeal held that the discovery order was overbroad and exceeded the bounds of relevance under Florida discovery rules, and granted the
• City OF Miami Beach v. Kuoni Destination Mgmt., Inc.
  81 So. 3d 530· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-02-08 ·cited 15×
  The City of Miami Beach appealed a temporary injunction preventing it from closing a private birthday party at a residential property, claiming the event violated the city's commercial use ordinance. The appellate court found the issue moot because the party had already occurred