Irreparable Harm

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

• Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. State OF S.C.
  945 F.2d 781· 4th Cir.· 1991-09-20 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction regarding statutes and executive orders but remanded the regulation for further balancing of hardships, clarifying the injunction did not declare the laws invalid.
• In re Klein
  940 F.2d 1075· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's order reversing a bankruptcy court's decision on a trustee election is not a final or collateral order and therefore not immediately appealable.
• Glenwood Bridge, Inc. v. City OF Minneapolis
  940 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant injunctive relief.
• Carnahan v. Alexander Proudfoot Co. World Headquarters
  581 So. 2d 184· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-05-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the non-compete agreement was enforceable, the injunction's geographic scope was improperly extended to New Zealand without sufficient evidence.
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. United States
  927 F.2d 1253· D.C. Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, thus affirming the denial of their request for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Title VI of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
• United States v. Rural Elec. Convenience Coop. Co.
  922 F.2d 429· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying injunctive relief, as federal interests necessitate a federal forum for resolving disputes involving federal bailouts and loan guarantees.
• Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Auto Body Panels OF Ohio, Inc.
  908 F.2d 951· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chrysler's motion for a preliminary injunction because Chrysler failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Baldree v. Cargill, Inc.
  758 F. Supp. 704· M.D. Fla.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court granted preliminary injunctions, ordering reinstatement of a grower and enjoining unfair practices, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• City OF Jacksonville v. C.J. Ventures, Inc.
  558 So. 2d 133· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The City of Jacksonville and Sheriff McMillan appealed a temporary injunction that blocked enforcement of a municipal ordinance regulating Sunday sales of alcoholic beverages. The court affirmed the injunction, finding the ordinance's enforcement provision violated due process by
• Holiday Pines Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Wetherington
  557 So. 2d 243· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-03-07 ·cited 6×
  An order determining class representation and certifying a class is not reviewable, but a temporary injunction is reversed because it disturbs the status quo and lacks findings of irreparable harm and clear legal right.
• Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  723 F. Supp. 669· M.D. Fla.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court must consider four factors to grant a preliminary injunction: likelihood of prevailing on merits, irreparable injury, harm to opposing parties, and public interest.
• OIL, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Amoco OIL Co. (Salt Lake City Refinery)
  885 F.2d 697· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal courts should not decide the merits of a labor dispute, even when considering injunctive relief pending arbitration, as this encroaches on the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
• In re Establishment Inspection OF Hern Iron Works v. Hern Iron Works, Inc.
  881 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the collateral bar rule applies to contempt proceedings arising from administrative search warrants, even if the underlying warrant is later found to be invalid.
• Fechter v. HMW Indus., Inc.
  879 F.2d 1111· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly issued against corporate defendants Clabir and HMW Industries regarding Count II of the complaint, but vacated the injunctions against individual defendants and HamTech.
• Nassau Boulevard Shell Serv. Station, Inc. v. Shell OIL Co.
  869 F.2d 23· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and preliminary injunction, but cautioned against eleventh-hour motions for relief in franchise disputes.
• Pallen v. Richardson
  531 So. 2d 1043· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-10-04 ·cited 6×
  Court reversed an injunction against two dentists who locked out a third from their joint practice, holding that monetary damages provide an adequate remedy at law and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Hudson Nat'l Bank v. Shapiro
  695 F. Supp. 544· S.D. Fla.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court granted a preliminary injunction against certain bank accounts believed to hold proceeds of a fraudulent credit card scheme, but denied it for another account where the plaintiff failed to establish a clear legal right.
• Flowers Indus. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  849 F.2d 551· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Flowers failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the case was not ripe for judicial review because the FTC had not yet initiated enforcement proceedings.
• ENG v. Smith
  849 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the provision of mental health services, finding a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Fla. Comm. for Liab. Reform v. McMillan
  682 F. Supp. 1536· M.D. Fla.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 102.031(3) is unconstitutionally overbroad and granted a preliminary injunction against its enforcement.
• Forry, Inc. v. Neundorfer, Inc.
  837 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm.
• Jensen v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  835 F.2d 196· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and in finding insufficient equitable grounds for injunctive relief, remanding for determination of IRS notice compliance.
• Pub. Serv. Co. OF NEW Hampshire v. Town OF W. Newbury
  835 F.2d 380· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the company failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm or success on the merits, and therefore the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Francine Marxe v. C.W. Jackson
  833 F.2d 1121· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits was supported by the record, the district court erred in finding irreparable harm to the plaintiff without sufficient affirmative evidence, thus reversing the preliminary injunction.
• Stiller v. Mariner CAY Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
  513 So. 2d 798· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-10-14 ·cited 6×
• WOE v. Cuomo
  801 F.2d 627· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by converting a preliminary injunction hearing into a permanent injunction without providing clear and unambiguous notice to the parties, and that while preliminary injunctive relief was warranted, the case must be remanded for a prope
• Reynolds Metals Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  777 F.2d 760· D.C. Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that requests for injunctive relief, including a refund obligation and a stay pending review, were premature or unsubstantiated, and therefore denied or dismissed.
• Outboard Marine Corp. v. Thomas
  773 F.2d 883· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the EPA lacked statutory authority under CERCLA to obtain an administrative warrant for preliminary design and surveying activities on private property when no emergency existed.
• Captain Dale M. Hartikka v. United States
  754 F.2d 1516· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court should be affirmed because the plaintiff has shown genuinely extraordinary irreparable injury due to the stigma of a general discharge, distinguishing it from ordinary employment termination cases.
• Sadowsky v. City OF NEW York
  732 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims regarding the recordation requirement of the SRO renovation law.
• FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Indus. Co., Ltd.
  730 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to protect FMC's trade secrets, finding FMC demonstrated irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits.
• United States v. The State OF NEW York
  708 F.2d 92· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the Eleventh Amendment precluded Beechcraft from seeking damages in federal court, thus establishing irreparable harm.
• State OF NEW York v. Dairylea Coop. Inc.
  698 F.2d 567· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 6×
  A district court's disapproval of a proposed settlement agreement in an antitrust case is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless it has the practical effect of denying an injunction and would cause serious, irreparable harm.
• Princeton Combustion Research Labs., Inc. v. Dir., John McCARTHY, Jr., United States Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., Lewis Research Ctr. at Cleveland, Ohio. Appeal of Shaker Research Corp.
  674 F.2d 1016· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-29 ·cited 6×
  A district court's review of a government procurement decision is limited to determining if the agency's decision was irrational; if the decision is found rational, the court must deny a preliminary injunction, even if procedural irregularities occurred.
• ABA Distribs., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
  661 F.2d 712· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the relief was justified by the record.
• Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  626 F.2d 1266· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) did not err in denying Transwestern's request for rate base treatment of its coal gasification project expenditures under the pre-Order 566 definition of Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D). The court
• Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. Brown-Port Co.
  621 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-25 ·cited 6×
  A preliminary injunction cannot be granted based solely on the potential irreparable harm to a non-party sublessee; the plaintiff must demonstrate irreparable harm to itself.
• Baum v. Coronado Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  376 So. 2d 914· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-11-13 ·cited 6×
  Condominium unit owners successfully appealed the dismissal of their nuisance abatement action against the condominium association. The court held that noise from an uncovered terrazzo corridor in the lobby above their apartment constituted a legally actionable nuisance and that
• Pharm. Soc'y OF the State OF NEW York, Inc. v. Lefkowitz
  586 F.2d 953· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the basic requirements for such relief, including showing probable success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Taylor Diving & Salvage Co., Inc. v. U. S. Dep't OF Labor
  537 F.2d 819· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-11 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the motion to stay the Emergency Temporary Standards pending appeal.
• Jones v. Pac. Intermountain Express
  536 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because the moving party did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, despite a recent Supreme Court decision impacting the analysis. The matter is remanded for trial.
• Byrne v. REC Ctrs., Inc.
  309 So. 2d 177· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-03-14 ·cited 6×
  The court reversed a temporary injunction because the trial court failed to require the plaintiff to post bond as mandated by Rule 1.610(b) RCP, but allowed reinstatement upon proper bonding.
• Mosinee Paper Corp. v. Rondeau
  500 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1974-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a violation of Section 13(d) of the Williams Act, even if unintentional and subsequently cured by late filing, warrants equitable relief because it deprives the market and issuer of timely information regarding potential control shifts.
• State OF Me. v. FRI
  486 F.2d 713· 1st Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the EPA Administrator to allot funds to Maine, as the order was procedurally sound and preserved the possibility of effective final relief.
• The PAX Co. OF Utah v. United States
  454 F.2d 93· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting an injunction against administrative proceedings under FIFRA because the company had not yet suffered irreparable harm and had not exhausted its administrative remedies.
• Devcon Corp. v. Woodhill Chem. Sales Corp.
  455 F.2d 830· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's trademark '5 MINUTE' for epoxy glue was likely descriptive and vacated the preliminary injunction.
• Roberts Realty OF the Bahamas, Ltd. v. Miller & Solomon (Bahamas), Ltd.
  234 So. 2d 417· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-04-21 ·cited 6×
  Roberts Realty appealed an injunction prohibiting it from pursuing proceedings in the Bahamas Supreme Court to challenge an arbitration award. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked proper authority to enjoin litigation in a foreign jurisdiction
• Mitchum v. State
  234 So. 2d 420· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-04-21 ·cited 6×
  Appellants sought supersedeas (stay) of a preliminary injunction prohibiting operation of The Book Mart, an adult bookstore alleged to be selling obscene materials. The trial court denied the motion for supersedeas, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court proper
• Bateman v. Ford Motor Co.
  310 F.2d 805· 3d Cir.· 1962-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, disagreeing with the majority's reversal.
• Aguilar v. Leal
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-01-28 ·cited 5×
  Ricardo Vazquez Aguilar sought a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order striking his expert witness, Dr. Santo BiFulco, for failure to timely disclose expert opinions regarding future care costs exceeding $3.4 million. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed th