Irreparable Harm

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

• Morris v. Ricks
  573 So. 2d 1029· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-02-01 ·cited 8×
  Morris, a creditor who held stock as security for a defaulted loan, sought to sell the stock after the debtor's death. The estate objected and obtained a temporary restraining order, claiming the stock was unique and irreplaceable. The appellate court reversed, holding that the e
• Abish v. Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. of Milwaukee
  924 F.2d 448· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order denying the surety's motion for quia timet and exoneration relief, as the order was neither a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory injunction.
• The Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc. v. Nicholian Adderly
  574 So. 2d 158· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-11-16 ·cited 8×
  The trial court erred in issuing a temporary injunction because the party seeking it failed to demonstrate a clear legal right, specifically a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
• Diamontiney v. Borg
  918 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction or in denying the motion for contempt, as reasonable steps were taken to ensure the inmate's access to the courts.
• Kellas v. Lane
  923 F.2d 492· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the inmate failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, an inadequate remedy at law, or irreparable harm, thus the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• In re the Marriage of Mary Nell Dixon v. Ronald Michael Melton (Deceased) and Ronald H. Melton and Frances C. Melton
  565 So. 2d 1378· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-07-31 ·cited 8×
  This case involves a dispute over custody and visitation rights between paternal grandparents and the natural mother of a child following the child's father's death. The court affirmed a temporary injunction restricting the child's removal from Leon County, finding it was properl
• McLaughlin v. Pernsley
  876 F.2d 308· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Catholic Social Services lacked standing to appeal the preliminary injunction, and that the Williamses, as intervenors, had standing to appeal only regarding the remedy. The court affirmed the district court's grant of a mandatory preliminary injunction orderi
• Quince Orchard Valley Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Hodel
  872 F.2d 75· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the action when balancing the harms.
• Gould v. Lambert Excavating, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1214· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×
• Georgianna Johnson v. KAY
  860 F.2d 529· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that allegations of a coordinated scheme to suppress dissent and monopolize communication within a union, even if involving officers, can establish federal jurisdiction under the LMRDA, justifying pendent jurisdiction over related state law claims. The case was not
• Kowalski v. Chicago Tribune Co.
  854 F.2d 168· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the distributors were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they had an adequate remedy at law through arbitration and had waived their right to equitable relief.
• Crist v. Miller
  846 F.2d 1143· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The denial of a motion to stay judicial proceedings pending arbitration is not appealable as a collateral order unless the appellant demonstrates irreparable harm.
• Frank's GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  847 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improvidently granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and the district court failed to require a bond as mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c).
• José Luis Romero Feliciano v. Hon. Jaime Torres Gaztambide
  836 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits of a political discrimination claim and irreparable harm.
• Formax, Inc. v. Hostert
  841 F.2d 388· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of misappropriated manufacturing prints was an abuse of discretion.
• Amoco OIL Co. v. Rainbow Snow, Inc.
  809 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1987-01-09 ·cited 8×
• Haskins v. Stanton
  794 F.2d 1273· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that private citizens have a right of action to sue state officials for violations of the Food Stamp Act, and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits seeking prospective injunctive relief.
• In re Newman
  782 F.2d 971· Fed. Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its discretionary authority by authorizing testing procedures that lacked fundamental fairness and departed from standard Rule 34 safeguards, potentially causing irreparable harm.
• The People OF the State OF Cal. ex rel. John VAN DE Kamp v. The Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  766 F.2d 1316· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal was timely under the 'unique circumstances' doctrine and that the district court did not err in denying TTSA's motions.
• First S. Dev. Corp. v. Chandler & Assocs., Inc.
  472 So. 2d 878· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-07-18 ·cited 8×
  The First District Court of Appeal denied certiorari review of a circuit court order denying a motion to dissolve a notice of lis pendens, finding the trial court properly considered the irreparable harm issue and did not depart from essential legal requirements.
• Stewart v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  762 F.2d 193· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the employee's claim of retaliatory suspension because the employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not properly commence an action for that claim. Furthermore, the court held that even if jurisdict
• Nat'l Bd. OF Young Men's Christian Ass'ns v. The Flint Young Men's Christian Ass'n OF Flint
  764 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff failed to show sufficient irreparable injury due to lack of product confusion or harm to reputation.
• Tiffany Sands, Inc. v. Mezhibovsky
  463 So. 2d 349· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-competition provision of an employment contract, finding the provision reasonable and enforceable upon termination.
• McDONELL v. Hunter
  746 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against certain searches and tests of correctional officers.
• Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  742 F.2d 242· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's interlocutory order was not ripe for judicial review because it was not a final agency action and lacked direct and immediate impact on the petitioner.
• Clean-Up '84 v. Heinrich
  582 F. Supp. 125· M.D. Fla.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted to prevent the enforcement of Fla. Stat. § 104.36, as it likely violates First Amendment rights by being overbroad and not the least restrictive means of regulating election conduct.
• Conn. Res. Recovery Auth. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
  705 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a request for injunctive enforcement of a contract's status quo provision pending arbitration requires a demonstration of supporting equitable factors, such as the absence of an adequate remedy at law or a danger of irreparable harm.
• The Singer Co. v. P. R. Mallory & Co., Inc.
  671 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an injunction against patent reissue proceedings and staying the Patent Office, as the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and other necessary prerequisites for injunctive relief.
• Cintron-Garcia v. Romero-Barcelo
  671 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits and the balance of harms did not favor injunctive relief.
• Lynch Corp. v. Omaha Nat'l Bank
  666 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to prevent the bank from disbursing funds from an escrow account, as the buyer faced irreparable harm due to potential multiplicity of suits.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Energy & James B. Edwards
  659 F.2d 150· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Mobil failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a necessary element for a preliminary injunction, and thus the injunction was improperly granted.
• Roberts v. Austin
  632 F.2d 1202· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Congress and the Department of Agriculture have precluded the type of verification procedure sought by the appellees.
• Farshy v. Kagan
  585 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits and any harm could be remedied by back pay.
• Victoriano Rodriguez Diaz v. Stathis
  576 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of claims by plaintiffs involved in pending state criminal proceedings and claims by a plaintiff in a state civil suit, but directed the dismissal of the civil suit plaintiff's claims to be without prejudice.
• Columbia Nitrogen Corp. & Nipro, Inc. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  559 F.2d 377· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that interlocutory procedural orders from the Federal Power Commission are not reviewable unless they impose definite, irreparable injury.
• Munson v. Gilliam
  543 F.2d 48· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and federal intervention in state criminal proceedings was unwarran
• Shell OIL Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  531 F.2d 1324· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission improperly rejected Shell Oil Company's rate increase filing under § 4 of the Natural Gas Act because Shell's certificate was not conditioned on the original contract's price terms.
• Town OF Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Cnty.
  332 So. 2d 355· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The Town of Palm Beach appealed an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction that restrained it from abandoning four beach access roads. The Florida appellate court reversed the temporary injunction, holding that the trial court's finding of irreparable injury was based
• Donovan Constr. Co. OF Minn. v. Construction
  533 F.2d 481· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while a Boys Markets injunction was appropriate to enforce a no-strike clause over a jurisdictional dispute, its scope was overly broad and not supported by sufficient evidence of future irreparable harm.
• Mass. AIR Pollution & Noise Abatement Comm. v. Brinegar
  499 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of a temporary restraining order because compelling circumstances were not present. The court noted the case was not ripe for interlocutory review due to lack of full evidence and unclear nexus between flig
• Citizens FOR A Better Env't, Inc. v. Nassau Cnty.
  488 F.2d 1353· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or irreparable harm, given the unresolved state law questions regarding the plaintiff orga
• Nuclear-Chicago Corp. & Hal O. Anger v. Nuclear Data, Inc.
  465 F.2d 428· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-10 ·cited 8×
  A finite market or the mere possibility of third-party competition does not, by itself, establish irreparable harm sufficient for a preliminary injunction when the defendant is solvent and capable of responding in money damages.
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  457 F.2d 381· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to continue operating the New York-Chatham passenger trains.
• Mixing Equip. Co., Inc. v. Philadelphia Gear, Inc.
  436 F.2d 1308· 3d Cir.· 1971-01-11 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would terminate the preliminary injunction and remand for a hearing on damages.
• Mass. Ave. Heights Citizens Ass'n v. Embassy Corp.
  433 F.2d 513· D.C. Cir.· 1970-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the appellant's motion for immediate injunctive relief and summary reversal of the order denying a preliminary injunction.
• Brooks v. Nacrelli
  415 F.2d 272· 3d Cir.· 1969-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as resisting a preliminary injunction motion does not automatically entitle a defendant to summary judgment without further opportunity for evidence.
• Botta v. Scanlon
  288 F.2d 504· 2d Cir.· 1961-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that individuals not specified in the taxing statutes as liable for a tax, especially a penalty for willful acts, should have an opportunity for judicial review before their property is seized.
• City OF Houston v. JAS. K. Dobbs Co. OF Dallas, Inc.
  232 F.2d 428· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the ordinance, which granted an exclusive right to sell food to airlines at the airport, was invalid as a whole because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and was not severable.
• Chicago v. Chicago Great W. R. Co.
  190 F.2d 361· 8th Cir.· 1951-08-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court should have modified its order denying a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant railroad from further dismantling the bridge and railway line, as the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial interest and potential irreparable harm.
• Ruiz v. Richard-Alexander D'Arbelles
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-02-11 ·cited 7×
  Monica Ruiz sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order compelling her to undergo a psychological evaluation in a family law case. The Florida appellate court granted the petition, holding that the trial court departed from essential requirements of law by failing to