Irreparable Harm

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

• The Indep. OIL & Chem. Workers OF Quincy, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.
  864 F.2d 927· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-28 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the potential harm to union members from implementing new work rules was insufficient to justify overriding the limitations of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and granting injunctive relief pending arbitration.
• Cerro Metal Prods. v. Marshall
  620 F.2d 964· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 70×
  The dissenting judge holds that the original version of § 1903.4 permitted ex parte warrants, making the injunctions improper due to lack of probable success on the merits.
• Conover v. Honorable Frank M. Montemuro, Jr.
  477 F.2d 1073· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 69×
  The court reinstated prior panel opinions, excluding portions on judicial immunity in § 1983 injunctive relief suits, and declined to rule on the issue.
• Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc.
  817 F. Supp. 1558· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-13 ·cited 68×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher
  605 F.2d 1130· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, but that the specific requirement to insert hyphens in written and oral references to the defendants' mark was an abuse of discretion and should be eliminated.
• Graham v. Edwards
  472 So. 2d 803· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-07-02 ·cited 67×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a preliminary injunction granted to developer John Edwards against the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, holding that Edwards failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The court a
• Smith Int'l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co.
  718 F.2d 1573· Fed. Cir.· 1983-10-06 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction based on a mistaken requirement to prove the extent of infringement before issuing the injunction, and that a strong showing of patent validity and infringement creates a presumption of irreparable h
• Dopp v. Franklin Nat'l Bank
  461 F.2d 873· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his securities law claim or irreparable injury, thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Reuben Palmer v. City OF Chicago
  806 F.2d 1316· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 65×
  An order to pay interim attorney's fees is appealable under the collateral order doctrine if the party ordered to pay faces irreparable harm from immediate payment that cannot be recovered if the order is later reversed.
• Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp.
  328 So. 2d 825· Fla.· 1975-07-17 ·cited 64×
  The court held that its previous mandate did not prevent the trial court from entering an order allowing a party to dispose of shares, provided minority interests were protected.
• Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  117 So. 3d 400· Fla.· 2013-06-27 ·cited 63×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a district court cannot use certiorari jurisdiction to review a trial court's denial of a governmental entity's sovereign immunity claim absent irreparable harm, and further held that a narrow police emergency exception does not apply as a matt
• Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp.
  672 F.2d 607· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-02 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the defendant's K. C. Munchkin appropriated protectable expression from the plaintiff's PAC-MAN audiovisual work, specifically its characters, warranting reversal of the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Rennie v. Klein
  653 F.2d 836· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the 'substantial departure from accepted professional judgment' standard governs a patient's constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication.
• Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc.
  384 So. 2d 734· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-06-11 ·cited 62×
  Contemporary Interiors appealed a trial court's grant of a temporary injunction that prohibited it from selling flooring in a shopping center. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements for obtaining this extrao
• FOX Valley Harvestore, Inc. v. A. O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc.
  545 F.2d 1096· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an inadequate remedy at law.
• Oxford Int'l Bank & Tr., Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch
  374 So. 2d 54· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-07-17 ·cited 61×
  The court held that a contingent and disputed claim for money damages is insufficient to establish the clear legal right required for injunctive relief.
• Atlanta GAS Light Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  476 F.2d 142· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-07 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the Commission's interim curtailment order was reviewable and that § 4 procedures were permissible, but the district court prematurely dismissed a claim for damages pending the Commission's final decision.
• Monahan v. State OF Neb.
  645 F.2d 592· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted for Rose due to potential conflict between state and federal law, the ordered second hearing was vacated due to changed circumstances, and Monahan was not entitled to preliminary relief as he failed to show irrepara
• Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. The Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel
  640 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction but modified it to expire within 90 days, finding that while the district court likely did not err in granting the injunction, the record deficiencies and potential overbreadth warranted modification.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. Sombrotto
  449 F.2d 915· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that reversing a denial of preliminary injunctive relief in a labor dispute, especially after a supervening event like a national agreement, is an extraordinary and potentially inappropriate action for an appellate court.
• Am. Civil Liberties Union OF Ill. v. City OF ST. Charles & Fred T.L. Norris
  794 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the prominent display of a Latin cross on a public building during Christmas, even if part of a larger display, likely violates the Establishment Clause because it signifies governmental support for Christianity and is not a traditional Christmas symbol.
• Usaco Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc.
  689 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a district court has the power to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve assets for potential restitution based on a breach of fiduciary duty, even if the defendants argue state law remedies are adequate.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha
  623 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 59×
  Benefits under an ERISA-covered pension plan are not subject to garnishment by a creditor of a plan beneficiary, and federal courts may enjoin such garnishments under ERISA's express authorization exception to the anti-injunction act.
• Ferrero v. Associated Materials Inc.
  923 F.2d 1441· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the new Georgia statute permitting reformation of covenants not to compete applies retroactively and that the preliminary injunction was properly granted under federal procedural standards.
• City OF NEW York v. Heckler
  742 F.2d 729· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction under § 405(g) and § 1361 to adjudicate the class members' challenge to the SSA's disability determination procedure and to award relief, including interim benefits.
• Liza Danielle, Inc. v. Jamko, Inc.
  408 So. 2d 735· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-01-12 ·cited 57×
  Jamko, Inc. sought an injunction against Moriber and Liza Danielle, Inc. for violating an exclusivity clause in Jamko's warehouse lease by leasing space to a competing shoe store. The court granted the injunction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Jamko had an adequa
• Thompson v. Planning Comm'n OF the City OF Jacksonville
  464 So. 2d 1231· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-02-11 ·cited 56×
  Thompson property owners sought to enjoin construction of an office building across the street after the Planning Commission granted a parking variance to the owners. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding that the variance was im
• Warner Bros., Inc. v. GAY Toys, Inc.
  658 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a likelihood of confusion as to sponsorship of a toy car, even if the plaintiff does not manufacture toy cars, is sufficient to invoke the protection of the Lanham Act and warrant preliminary injunctive relief.
• United States v. Sch. Dist. OF Ferndale
  577 F.2d 1339· 6th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction based on the evidence presented.
• United States v. Spectro Foods Corp.
  544 F.2d 1175· 3d Cir.· 1976-10-13 ·cited 56×
  The court held that certain provisions of the preliminary injunction were overly broad and unsupported by evidence, and that the civil contempt order, based on those provisions, must be vacated. The court also found that the contempt proceedings lacked due process for any potenti
• Gilliam v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  538 F.2d 14· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the Lanham Act does not apply to claims of artistic integrity or distortion of a work, but only to misdescriptions of origin.
• Shondel v. McDERMOTT
  775 F.2d 859· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 55×
  The court held that Shondel lacks standing to sue based on the violation of her stepfather's constitutional rights.
• Del. River Port Auth. v. Transamerican Trailer Transp., Inc.
  501 F.2d 917· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, and other factors, including harm to third parties and the public interest, did not suppo
• Moises Garcia-Mir v. Meese
  781 F.2d 1450· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 53×
  The court agreed with the result reached by the majority, but disagreed with the majority's assessment of the merits of the government's case.
• Processed Plastic Co. v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.
  675 F.2d 852· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-07 ·cited 53×
  A preliminary injunction was properly granted under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act because the toy manufacturer's deliberate copying of an iconic television show car created a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source or sponsorship, and such confusion causes irreparable har
• Damsky v. Univ. OF Miami & Alan Livingstone, M.D.
  152 So. 3d 789· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-12-10 ·cited 52×
  The Damskys petitioned for a writ of certiorari to challenge a trial court order that found Dr. Barkin to be an employee of the University of Miami, thereby potentially allowing privileged ex parte communications. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for la
• Colucci v. EAR Rare Auto. Grp., Inc.
  918 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-01-25 ·cited 52×
  Richard Colucci appeals a preliminary injunction prohibiting him from competing nationwide for five years. The appellate court reversed, holding that Kar Kare Automotive Group failed to establish a legitimate business interest sufficient to support enforcement of the non-compete
• W. Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan
  689 F.2d 950· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the OSHA inspection warrant was supported by administrative probable cause and was not overly broad. The district court improperly considered evidence not presented to the magistrate when re
• Kampmeier v. Ewald Nyquist
  553 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient factual showing of likely success on the merits to warrant preliminary relief, and thus affirmed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Drew v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  480 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the 1972 amendments to Title VII did not eliminate an individual employee's right to seek temporary injunctive relief pending EEOC action, and that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was error.
• Automatic Radio MFG. Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  390 F.2d 113· 1st Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a compelling case of immediate irreparable injury, which is necessary for granting a preliminary injunction.
• Dino DeLAURENTIIS Cinemato-Grafica v. D-150, Inc.
  366 F.2d 373· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-16 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the movant made a sufficient showing of probable success and possible irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction, reversing the district court's denial.
• Millennium Commc'ns & Fulfillment v. Off. of the Attorney Gen.
  761 So. 2d 1256· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-07-19 ·cited 49×
  Millennium Communications and Advanced Marketing challenged a temporary injunction under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) for marketing Continental's Advantage credit card program to out-of-state consumers. The appellate court reversed the injunction, h
• Luce v. Edelstein
  802 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 49×
  The court held that while some fraud allegations were insufficiently pleaded, others, particularly those concerning specific broken promises in the Offering Memorandum, stated a claim under Section 10(b). The court also found that dismissal without leave to amend was an abuse of
• I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc.
  789 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 49×
  An interlocutory order requiring interim withdrawal liability payments is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the appellant fails to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Publicker Indus., Inc. v. David Cohen. Appeal of Philadelphia Newspapers
  733 F.2d 1059· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 49×
  The First Amendment secures a right of access to civil proceedings for the public and the press, and the district court erred in closing the hearing and sealing the transcript without adequate justification.
• The Cont'l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  614 F.2d 351· 3d Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the risk of inadvertent disclosure alone is insufficient to justify a preliminary injunction against employment, and that the non-competition covenant did not cover Grovijohn's role as a plant manager in manufacturing bottles.
• Midwest Growers Coop. Corp. v. Kirkemo
  533 F.2d 455· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-26 ·cited 48×
  The administrative inspection search warrant was invalid because the Interstate Commerce Commission lacked statutory authority to obtain it, but the individual defendants were immune from damages due to qualified immunity, and the permanent injunction against all use of the seize
• Stateside Mach. Co., Ltd. v. Alperin
  526 F.2d 480· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 48×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not cause irreparable harm, and a stay of a hybrid legal/equitable action is also not appealable.
• Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp.
  558 F.2d 1090· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-12 ·cited 47×
  The court held that color is an element of a copyrighted textile design and that certain of the defendant's fabrics were substantially similar, while others were not.