Irreparable Harm

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

• Brotherhood OF Railway v. The Atchison
  847 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the dispute over voluntary employee buyouts is a minor dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and federal court jurisdiction over alleged RLA violations is limited to exceptional circumstances not present here.
• Inverness Corp. v. Whitehall Labs. & Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  819 F.2d 48· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its preliminary injunction, requiring a remand for further explanation.
• T.K. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Herman
  505 So. 2d 484· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-03-16 ·cited 10×
  T.K. Communications (WSHE) appeals the denial of a temporary injunction against former disc jockeys who breached a non-compete covenant by accepting employment at a competing radio station within the restricted period. The court reverses, holding that the employees violated the n
• Population Inst. v. McPHERSON
  797 F.2d 1062· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Administrator's determination to withhold funds was reasonable, but vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded for reconsideration based on a proper interpretation of the statute.
• Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  780 F.2d 991· Fed. Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 10×
  The district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction and establishing an escrow account for royalty payments pendente lite, as the Lear decision does not permit a licensee to avoid the consequences of breaching a license agreement while challenging patent validity.
• Stading v. Equilease Corp.
  471 So. 2d 1379· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted because the appellee failed to allege or prove an inadequate remedy at law.
• Black United Fund OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Kean
  763 F.2d 156· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that because a new statute repealed the challenged law and substantially enlarged eligibility criteria for charitable organizations, the appellate court should not affirm the district court's preliminary injunction, as the basis for the injunction no longer existed
• Bill Blass, Ltd. v. SAZ Corp. & Zion
  751 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the unauthorized sale of goods bearing the Bill Blass trademark after license expiration.
• Chilcott v. Verne ORR
  747 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the airman failed to show irreparable harm and because military discharge procedures do not violate due process or constitutional provisions against ex post facto laws.
• Burrus v. Turnbo
  743 F.2d 693· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) mandates dismissal with prejudice if a receiving state returns a prisoner to the sending state before trial, regardless of the reason for the return or subsequent appellate reinstatement of the indictment.
• Schwadel v. Hy Uchitel
  455 So. 2d 401· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-07-10 ·cited 10×
  Shareholders Mike and Peter Schwadel sought to enjoin corporate president Hy Uchitel from selling The Place for Steak, the last major asset of their restaurant holding company HJU, arguing that the sale violated statutory shareholder notice and voting rights. The appellate court
• Holly Sugar Corp. v. Goshen Cnty. Coop. Beet Growers Ass'n
  725 F.2d 564· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's findings were inadequate for review on dispositive issues and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
• W.H. Martin and C.H. Martin v. Pinellas Cnty.
  444 So. 2d 439· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-12-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in issuing a preliminary mandatory injunction to remove illegally dumped materials threatening a public water supply, nor in denying a motion to dissolve the injunction pending appeal.
• Tierney v. Schweiker
  718 F.2d 449· D.C. Cir.· 1983-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Social Security Administration's notice-and-consent form did not meet the requirements of Internal Revenue Code subsection 6103(c) for disclosing confidential tax information, as it was coercive and lacked specificity.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Virgin Islands Paving, Inc.
  714 F.2d 283· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the District Court of the Virgin Islands erred by applying the traditional federal standard for preliminary injunctions instead of the statutory standard provided by the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act, which requires a prima facie showing of a viol
• Zenith Radio Corp. v. The United States
  710 F.2d 806· Fed. Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court must reconsider Zenith's motion for a preliminary injunction, evaluating all factors, not just irreparable harm.
• SAN Francisco Real Est. Invs. v. Real Est. Inv. Tr. OF Am.
  701 F.2d 1000· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying SFREI's motion for a preliminary injunction against the by-law and reversed that decision. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of an injunction against SFREI's tender offer, finding a likelihood of success on
• Spartacus, Inc. v. Borough OF McKEES Rocks
  694 F.2d 947· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Birch v. Honorable Earl J. Mazander
  678 F.2d 754· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-20 ·cited 10×
  A judge is immune from liability for damages if acting within jurisdiction and performing judicial acts, and equitable relief requires irreparable harm and lack of adequate legal remedy.
• United States v. City OF Painesville
  644 F.2d 1186· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the boiler was a 'new source' under the Clean Air Act and that an evidentiary hearing was not required before issuing an injunction for violations.
• Septum, Inc. v. Keller
  614 F.2d 456· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that by cooperating with the prosecuting attorney, the defendant brought itself within the Younger abstention window, allowing for federal court intervention.
• Conservation LAW Found. OF NEW England, Inc. v. Andrus
  617 F.2d 296· 1st Cir.· 1979-11-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and thus injunctive relief pending appeal was not warranted.
• Marchezak v. Myron R. McKINLEY
  607 F.2d 37· 3d Cir.· 1979-10-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Secretary of Agriculture had the authority under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to issue regulations altering the time and method of payment to producers, as these provisions were incidental to and necessary for effectuating the Act's pur
• Md. Undercoating Co., Inc. v. Payne
  603 F.2d 477· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to balance the potential harm to the defendant with the potential harm to the plaintiff when granting a preliminary injunction and by incorrectly concluding that the defendant's new employer was in competition with the plain
• Small v. Kiley
  567 F.2d 163· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should not have been entered without the district court making required findings regarding likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, and without determining jurisdiction.
• The Fund FOR Animals v. Frizzell
  530 F.2d 982· D.C. Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and noting the delay in seeking relief.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. City OF Miami
  299 So. 2d 152· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-09-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a temporary injunction without adequate basis in the complaint or evidence, and by denying the motion to dissolve it.
• Mich. Power Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  494 F.2d 1140· D.C. Cir.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission (FPC) could allow pipeline companies to file tariff revisions for curtailment plans under Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, even if these revisions conflicted with existing contracts, and that such plans do not constitute an abando
• Pittsburgh Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union NO. 9 v. Pittsburgh Press Co.
  479 F.2d 607· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctions because the unions failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm.
• Goldie Ann Betts v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Chicago
  466 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable probability of success on the merits of her due process or state statutory claims.
• Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. City OF Mobile
  457 F.2d 340· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction without a full hearing was improper and ordered the immediate grant of the injunction.
• Symington Wayne Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  383 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and the balance of hardships weighed against granting a preliminary injunction.
• Edwards v. Habib
  366 F.2d 628· D.C. Cir.· 1965-12-03 ·cited 10×
• Murphy v. Wash. Am. League Base Ball Club, Inc.
  324 F.2d 394· D.C. Cir.· 1963-07-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction against salary increases was not an abuse of discretion, and that the corporation's payment of legal fees for officers charged with misconduct requires separate representation.
• Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Mahon
  293 So. 3d 1091· Fla. 5th DCA· 2020-04-08 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Department of Agriculture appeals a trial court order requiring it to present evidence first in a damages trial following a finding of an inverse condemnation taking. The appellate court dismisses the petition for certiorari because the Department failed to demonstrat
• Gomillion v. State
  267 So. 3d 502· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-03-20 ·cited 9×
  George Gomillion petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order denying his objection to the State's subpoena of his toxicology records in a criminal case involving leaving the scene of an accident. The court granted the petition, holding that the State failed t
• Olson v. Olson
  260 So. 3d 367· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-11-14 ·cited 9×
  A trial court cannot grant a temporary injunction based on an attorney's unsworn statements when a noticed, contested evidentiary hearing is held; sworn testimony or stipulation is required to establish the necessary factual findings.
• Tanya Taival, D.O. v. Lacey Barrett
  204 So. 3d 486· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-07-15 ·cited 9×
  This case involves an appeal from a non-final order denying a motion for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity in a medical malpractice case. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the denial was based on disputed facts, not a pure
• Lender Processing Servs., Inc. v. ARCH Ins. Co.
  183 So. 3d 1052· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-04-22 ·cited 9×
  Lender Processing Services sought a writ of certiorari challenging the trial court's overruling of attorney-client privilege objections during a hearing on a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with an insurance company. The court denied the petition, holding that LPS waived
• Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc.
  148 So. 3d 163· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-10-13 ·cited 9×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal denied a petition to quash a discovery order requiring limited inspection of a deceased motorist's cell phone in a wrongful death action. The court held that a strictly controlled expert inspection of cell phone data for a nine-hour peri
• State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Ramirez
  86 So. 3d 1198· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-04-30 ·cited 9×
  The court held that an order compelling production of an entire insurance claim file in a breach of contract action, without a bad faith claim and before coverage is resolved, is an improper departure from the essential requirements of law.
• McKEEGAN v. Ernst
  84 So. 3d 1229· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-04-11 ·cited 9×
  Rita McKeegan appealed an ex parte temporary injunction granted against her by the trial court. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the injunction facially deficient because it lacked sufficient factual findings supporting each prong of the four-part injunction
• Silverio Antonio Gonzalez Plaza v. Maria Gabriela Gonzalez Plaza
  78 So. 3d 4· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-09-07 ·cited 9×
  The appellate court held that the trial court erred in granting a temporary injunction and appointing a receiver without making the required findings of fact regarding irreparable harm and risk of loss.
• K.G. Mother of N.G. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families
  66 So. 3d 366· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-07-26 ·cited 9×
  A Florida appellate court granted a mother's petition for writ of certiorari to quash a shelter order that placed her child with the maternal grandmother because the trial court violated her due process right to be heard by announcing its decision before allowing her to present e
• Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co.
  54 So. 3d 1007· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-12-29 ·cited 9×
  Diaz-Verson sought a protective order to prevent discovery of his personal financial information through subpoenas issued by Walbridge in a construction fraud case. The court held that personal financial information is discoverable only if relevant to the issues framed by the ple
• Kountze v. Kountze
  20 So. 3d 428· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-10-16 ·cited 9×
  Elizabeth Kountze and Charles Denman Kountze appealed a trial court order finding jurisdiction over them and requiring maintenance of the status quo of trust assets claimed by the estate's personal representative. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court
• Jouvence Ctr. FOR Advanced Health, LLC v. Jouvence Rejuvenation Ctrs., LLC
  14 So. 3d 1097· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-06-10 ·cited 9×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a preliminary injunction granted to JRC against JCAH and the Haskins, finding that the trial court failed to make the required factual findings and failed to establish JRC's likelihood of success on the merits regarding whether the patient files
• D. Stephenson Constr., Inc. v. Fidel Mendiguren and Fidel Mendiguren
  958 So. 2d 527· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-06-06 ·cited 9×
  The trial court erred by granting a shareholder's request to inspect corporate records without making findings that the statutory requirements for such inspection were met.
• Somarriba v. Javed S. ALI and Isaac A. Velazquez
  941 So. 2d 526· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-11-08 ·cited 9×
  The court granted a petition for certiorari to quash a protective order that barred a plaintiff from deposing her former attorney regarding injuries from a prior accident. The court held that no recognized legal ground supported the protective order, especially where the testimon
• Dep't OF Revenue v. Long
  937 So. 2d 1235· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-09-25 ·cited 9×
  The Department of Revenue sought review of an administrative order requiring DNA testing to establish paternity, even though the respondent had previously signed an acknowledgment of paternity. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the Administrative