Irreparable Harm

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

• Spry v. Professional Employer Plans
  985 So. 2d 1187· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-07-07 ·cited 46×
  In a workers' compensation case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal granted certiorari review to quash a discovery order compelling the claimant to disclose financial information. The court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate the relevance of the requested fin
• Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's BIG BOY OF Steubenville, Inc.
  670 F.2d 642· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Elby's television advertising created a likelihood of confusion regarding its Ohio restaurants' affiliation with the Big Boy trademark, warranting injunctive relief under the Lanham Act. However, the court found the district court erred in not applying the sam
• KMW Int'l v. Chase Manhattan Bank
  606 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that KMW failed to meet the standard for a preliminary injunction because it did not demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits, as the obligation under an irrevocable letter of credit is independent of the underlying transaction and poli
• MR. Lucky Messenger Serv., Inc. v. United States
  587 F.2d 15· 7th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the prolonged withholding of seized property without justification, even if initially seized under a valid warrant, can constitute a basis for equitable relief.
• State v. Artis
  345 So. 2d 1109· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-05-20 ·cited 46×
  The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a circuit court's grant of a temporary injunction ordering reinstatement of security guards at a state hospital who engaged in a "sick out." The appellate court reversed, holding that the guards had an adequate
• Cnty. OF Alameda v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  520 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-19 ·cited 46×
  A final determination of disallowance under the Social Security Act is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Am. Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt
  714 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, even considering potential NEPA violations, because the public interest in protecting fragile desert resources outweighed the plaintiffs' claims.
• SK&F v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc.
  625 F.2d 1055· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted, affirming that copying the distinctive trade dress of a drug can constitute unfair competition under New Jersey law, even if the product is unpatented.
• Klaus v. Hi-Shear Corp.
  528 F.2d 225· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 45×
  The court held that preliminary injunctions were improperly issued based on mistaken legal theories, particularly regarding irreparable harm and indispensable parties, and reversed or vacated several injunctions while affirming others.
• Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins
  763 So. 2d 1197· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-02-02 ·cited 44×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for certiorari seeking to quash a discovery order on grounds of undue burden and oppressiveness. The court held that absent record evidence supporting claims of excessive burden, and absent showing of irreparable ha
• Barry J. Koerpel, M.D. v. Heckler
  797 F.2d 858· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Dr. Koerpel's claims of liberty deprivation were sufficiently colorable to establish federal court jurisdiction, but ultimately found that he had not raised difficult or doubtful questions on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• In re Teleport OIL Co. v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank
  759 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 44×
  The court held that an appeal from a district court's denial of a stay pending appeal of a bankruptcy court order is not a final decision and is therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).
• Miofsky v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  703 F.2d 332· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 44×
  A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the alleged infringement of rights arises from state court proceedings, and res judicata does not bar claims summarily denied by state appellate courts.
• DOE v. Bellin Mem'l Hosp.
  479 F.2d 756· 7th Cir.· 1973-06-01 ·cited 44×
  A private hospital's refusal to perform abortions, even if it receives federal or state funding and is state-regulated, does not violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the state directly influences or participates in the decision.
• Bose Corp. v. Linear Design Labs, Inc.
  467 F.2d 304· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-21 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction for patent infringement and Lanham Act violations, but modified the order to require the defendant to affix its name to a visible surface of the product.
• Am. Fed'n of Musicians v. Stein
  213 F.2d 679· 6th Cir.· 1954-06-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, as the Norris-LaGuardia Act was inapplicable and the jurisdictional question regarding diversity of citizenship was a substantial issue for the district court to determine.
• Cooper v. Hutchinson
  184 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1950-07-21 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge believes the District Court's denial of an injunction should be affirmed, as federal courts should not intervene when state remedies are available and no irreparable harm is shown.
• Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State
  210 So. 3d 1243· Fla.· 2017-02-16 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a 2015 law imposing a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before abortion procedures violates Florida's constitutional right to privacy and is presumptively unconstitutional under strict scrutiny review. The court rejected the First District's req
• Washington v. DeBeaugrine
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1332· N.D. Fla.· 2009-10-01 ·cited 43×
  A state official's erroneous denial of a Medicaid beneficiary's federal right to a hearing before benefit termination or reduction can be challenged in federal court, not solely in state court.
• Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. James E. Pope, M.D., Heartcare Inst. of Tampa, P.A.
  798 So. 2d 1· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-07-25 ·cited 43×
  A law firm sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of billing invoices from medical expert witnesses. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the discovery order does not create irreparable harm necessary for certiorari review and, on the merits,
• 3299 N. Fed. Hwy., Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Broward Cnty.
  646 So. 2d 215· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-09-09 ·cited 43×
  Two nude dancing nightclubs and three dancers challenged Broward County's newly adopted Adult Entertainment Code by seeking a temporary injunction to prevent its enforcement. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the injunction, finding that app
• Hoxworth v. Blinder
  903 F.2d 186· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 43×
  A district court has the power to issue a preliminary injunction to protect a potential future damages remedy, but the value of the encumbered assets must bear a reasonable relationship to the likely amount of the plaintiffs' expected recovery.
• Teradyne, Inc. v. Mostek Corp.
  797 F.2d 43· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 43×
  An interlocutory order requiring a party to set aside assets to satisfy a potential judgment, even if similar to an attachment, is appealable as a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it is coercive and treated as such by the parties and the court. Furthermore,
• Dania JAI Alai Int'l, Inc. v. Murua
  375 So. 2d 57· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-09-26 ·cited 43×
  A professional jai alai player sought reinstatement after being fired, obtaining a temporary mandatory injunction requiring his immediate reinstatement with back pay. The appellate court reversed, holding that breach of an employment contract does not ordinarily justify mandatory
• State v. Travis
  971 So. 2d 157· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-12-17 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Department of Revenue sought certiorari review of a circuit court order requiring DNA testing of the mother and child in a child support proceeding, despite the respondent's prior notarized voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. The court held that absent allegations
• Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. The Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  739 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 42×
  The court should have abstained from hearing the case due to important state interests implicated in the unlawful detainer proceedings.
• In re The Justices OF the Supreme Court OF Puerto RICO
  695 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico are entitled to a writ of mandamus to dismiss claims against them regarding membership and dues statutes, as they act as neutral adjudicators and no case or controversy exists. However, the Puerto Rico Bar Assoc
• In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litig. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips, Inc. v. A & B Mgmt. Corp. v. MRS. Paul's Kitchens
  689 F.2d 1137· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a district court may not award disputed monetary damages via a preliminary injunction when the movant has not requested such relief and has not demonstrated irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Bonner v. Cir. Court OF the City OF ST. Louis
  526 F.2d 1331· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 42×
• Cleaver v. Wilcox
  499 F.2d 940· 9th Cir.· 1974-06-07 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while injunctive relief was inappropriate due to lack of irreparable harm and Younger considerations, declaratory relief regarding the right to appointed counsel in child dependency cases was proper.
• Milsen Co. v. The Southland Corp.
  454 F.2d 363· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion because the district court erred in finding no connection between the alleged antitrust violations and the franchisor's attempt to collect franchise fees and terminate agreements.
• Nelson v. Miller
  373 F.2d 474· 3d Cir.· 1967-02-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction, as the availability of post-discharge administrative review and the 'Honorable' discharge status mitigated potential irreparable harm.
• Naegele Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Jacksonville
  659 So. 2d 1046· Fla.· 1995-08-24 ·cited 41×
  The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed a district court's decision to quash a temporary injunction that had prohibited the City of Jacksonville from levying fines against billboard companies for violating a sign ordinance. The court ultimately approved the district court's decisio
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc.
  861 F.2d 1020· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 41×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, holding that the FTC has the authority to seek such relief under section 13(b) of the FTCA, and that the defendants' alleged deceptive advertising practices constituted a 'proper case' for injunctive relie
• Sperry Int'l Trade, Inc. v. Gov't OF Israel
  670 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 41×
  The court held that Sperry failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a necessary element for a preliminary injunction under either prong of the Second Circuit's standard. Therefore, the district court erred in granting the injunction.
• Parks v. Honorable John T. Dunlop
  517 F.2d 785· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-13 ·cited 41×
  The court held that federal employees suing under Title VII are not required to exhaust administrative remedies, but that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted without a showing of irreparable harm.
• Shelton v. Gill
  202 F.2d 503· 4th Cir.· 1953-02-17 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the statutory prohibition against suits to restrain tax collection does not apply when plaintiffs are not liable for the tax and face irreparable harm from wrongful seizure of their property.
• Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan
  151 So. 3d 1282· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-12-12 ·cited 40×
  Holmes Regional Medical Center sought certiorari review to overturn denial of its motion to dismiss a negligence complaint, arguing the Dumigans' claims constituted medical malpractice subject to Florida's presuit notice requirements. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that
• Rewjb GAS Invs. v. Land O'Sun Realty, Ltd.
  645 So. 2d 1055· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-11-16 ·cited 40×
  Tenants in a Palm Beach County eviction proceeding sought review of an order denying their motion to stay the eviction pending resolution of a related declaratory judgment action in Dade County involving the same parties and a contract interpretation issue. The court held that de
• K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc.
  875 F.2d 907· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the landlord's construction of retail buildings in violation of the lease constituted a breach, and that injunctive relief was appropriate due to irreparable harm to the tenant's goodwill and property rights.
• H.H. Robertson v. United Steel Deck, Inc.
  820 F.2d 384· Fed. Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction for patent infringement, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and sufficient equitable grounds.
• Wis. GAS Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  758 F.2d 669· D.C. Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a necessary condition for granting a stay, and therefore denied their motions for stay.
• Heavener v. R. W. Fla. Region, Inc.
  418 So. 2d 1074· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-08-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a broad temporary injunction against soliciting franchisees of a competitor was not overly broad and affirmed the trial court's decision.
• Auburn News Co., Inc. v. Providence Journal Co.
  659 F.2d 273· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against the newspaper publisher's conversion to a direct distribution system, as vertical integration alone does not violate antitrust laws and treble damages are an adequate remedy for alleged pre-
• Playpen S., Inc. v. City OF Oakland Park
  396 So. 2d 830· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-04-08 ·cited 40×
  Playpen South, Inc. appealed the denial of a temporary injunction against a City of Oakland Park ordinance reducing the closing time for nightclubs from 4:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the appellant failed to satisfy the four prerequisites for t
• Diversified Mortg. Invs. v. U. S. Life Title Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  544 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 40×
  A preliminary injunction should not rewrite a contract or grant final relief, and requires a showing of irreparable harm causally related to the enjoined conduct.
• The Quechan Tribe OF Indians v. Rowe
  531 F.2d 408· 9th Cir.· 1976-02-02 ·cited 40×
  An officer acting in good faith to enforce a federal law he has authority to enforce is immune from state criminal prosecution, and his actions were not so outrageous as to be beyond his authority.
• Grubbs v. Butz
  514 F.2d 1323· D.C. Cir.· 1975-06-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a federal employee is not required to exhaust administrative remedies after 180 days have passed without final agency action, and administrative proceedings may continue concurrently with a civil action, provided the employee is given a full opportunity to pre
• Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Meter
  385 F.2d 265· 8th Cir.· 1967-11-02 ·cited 40×
  A district court's grant of a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) requires more than a finding of reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred; it must also demonstrate a probability that the Act's remedial purposes would be frustrated without immediate reli
• Egan v. The City of Miami
  130 Fla. 465· Fla.· 1938-01-05 ·cited 40×
  E. L. Egan and other operators of tourist camps challenged Miami's Ordinance 1617 regulating tourist camps, tent cities, and trailer parks, arguing the city lacked authority and the ordinance was unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of their complain