Irreparable Harm

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

• Weinstein v. Yoram Aisenberg
  758 So. 2d 705· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-03-09 ·cited 39×
  A trial court cannot issue a temporary injunction to freeze assets in an action for conversion if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, such as money damages.
• Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt
  667 So. 2d 880· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-02-02 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering a written temporary injunction that exceeded its oral ruling and lacked sufficient factual findings to support the necessary criteria for issuance.
• Boyd v. Pheo, Inc.
  664 So. 2d 294· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-11-21 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court's order prohibiting ex parte communications with certain employees did not cause irreparable harm, thus certiorari review was not warranted.
• Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Allstate Indem. Co.
  722 F.2d 1332· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not unambiguously mandate appraisal as a condition precedent to filing suit, and therefore the district court erred in ordering appraisal.
• Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Detroit Typographical Union NO. 18
  471 F.2d 872· 6th Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because it failed to weigh the equities between the parties and make findings of irreparable harm, which are required prerequisites under Boys Markets.
• Rosen v. Cascade Int'l, Inc.
  21 F.3d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1994-04-11 ·cited 38×
  Shareholders of Cascade International brought a class action against Dr. Lawrence Moses and others for securities fraud arising from allegedly fraudulent financial statements and unauthorized stock issuances that inflated the company's stock price. The district court granted a pr
• Zimmerman v. D.C.A. AT Welleby, Inc.
  505 So. 2d 1371· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-04-15 ·cited 38×
  Residents of a condominium sued to enjoin occupants from picketing and displaying signs to pressure the developer into making repairs, alleging defamation and tortious interference with prospective business relationships. The court affirmed the injunction in part but reversed the
• In re Feit & Drexler, Inc. v. Drexler
  760 F.2d 406· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 38×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court had the statutory authority to issue a mandatory turnover order for property located outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that the order was appealable as an interlocutory injunction. The court affirmed the district court's o
• Gloria Banks v. Trainor
  525 F.2d 837· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction and its modifications were properly entered because the notices provided to food stamp recipients regarding benefit reductions were constitutionally inadequate and failed to comply with federal regulations.
• Nat'l Land & Inv. Co. v. Arlen Specter
  428 F.2d 91· 3d Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary prerequisites.
• R.R. Yardmasters of Am. v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  224 F.2d 226· 3d Cir.· 1955-07-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prevent injunctive relief when a carrier threatens to violate explicit provisions of the Railway Labor Act, and that a preliminary injunction was properly issued given serious doubts about the validity of a labor agreement and
• Foreclosure Freesearch, Inc. v. Sullivan
  12 So. 3d 771· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-04-29 ·cited 37×
  Foreclosure FreeSearch appealed a trial court's temporary injunction blocking a reverse stock split and appraisal process affecting minority shareholders Sullivan and Muttillo. The appellate court reversed, holding that the appraisal process constitutes an adequate remedy at law
• Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett
  454 So. 2d 1067· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-08-16 ·cited 37×
  Florida appellate court denied certiorari review of a trial court's protective order limiting discovery of respondent's financial records in a replevin action with punitive damages claim, holding that certiorari is unavailable to review orders denying discovery because such error
• Exhibitors Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp.
  441 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-30 ·cited 37×
• Dist. 50 v. Int'l Union
  412 F.2d 165· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a persuasive case for irreparable harm or a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.
• United States v. Askins & Miller Orthopaedics, P.A.
  924 F.3d 1348· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-23 ·cited 36×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the IRS may be entitled to a preliminary injunction against a serial tax delinquent, as a suit for money damages is not necessarily an adequate remedy at law when the taxpayer is judgment-proof and has a history of evading payment.
• Dep't OF Child. & Families v. L.D. and J.S.
  840 So. 2d 432· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-03-21 ·cited 36×
  The Department of Children and Families appealed a trial court order staying termination of parental rights proceedings for 90 days to allow parents additional time to comply with a case plan. The appellate court affirmed the stay, holding that the trial court did not abuse its d
• Sardinas v. Claridania Lagares
  805 So. 2d 1024· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-12-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the discovery order departed from the essential requirements of law and caused irreparable harm, warranting certiorari review.
• Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int'l Corp.
  263 F.3d 1297· 11th Cir.· 2001-08-28 ·cited 36×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction against PLD for trademark infringement. The court held that the unauthorized resale of a trademarked product that is materially different from the genuine product constitutes infringement,
• Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Hickory Lakes OF Brandon, Inc.
  458 So. 2d 45· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-10-17 ·cited 36×
  Hallmark Builders sought to amend its specific performance complaint to add a third-party purchaser as a defendant and to reinstate a discharged lis pendens. The trial court denied the amendment motion and discharged the lis pendens without notice or hearing. The appellate court
• Am. CAN Co. v. Ishwar Mansukhani
  742 F.2d 314· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the temporary restraining order was improperly issued ex parte because there was no valid reason for proceeding without notice and it failed to comply with Rule 65(b)'s procedural requirements. The preliminary injunction was also deemed erroneously granted due
• Mental Health Ass'n OF Minn. v. Heckler
  720 F.2d 965· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a judicial waiver of the exhaustion requirement for Social Security disability claims was appropriate due to potential irreparable harm and that the preliminary injunction was largely proper, though modified to be more precise.
• Filippo v. United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am.
  525 F.2d 508· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because no irreparable harm was shown, and affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the cause of action alleging an unlawful trusteeship under the LMRDA, as that issue required further fact
• Faro v. NEW York Univ.
  502 F.2d 1229· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and the university's actions were not motivated by sex discrimination.
• Sanders v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  473 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the requested injunctions were overly broad and failed to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d), and the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a high
• Straub v. Matte
  805 So. 2d 99· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-01-23 ·cited 35×
  The appellate court held that the trial court's discovery order compelling disclosure of prenuptial agreements was reviewable by certiorari and constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing irreparable harm.
• Snibbe v. The Napoleonic Soc'y OF Am., Inc.
  682 So. 2d 568· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-09-25 ·cited 35×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction was lacking over nonresident officers acting within their corporate capacity, and that the injunctions lacked sufficient factual findings to support their issuance.
• Carey v. Klutznick
  637 F.2d 834· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge believes the appellees have not shown the requisite showing of irreparable harm and would reverse the grant of preliminary relief.
• Duke v. The State OF Tex.
  477 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 35×
  Federal injunctive relief against state judicial proceedings is not prohibited where state procedures are inadequate to protect federal rights and prevent irreparable harm.
• Itek Corp. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Boston
  730 F.2d 19· 1st Cir.· 1984-03-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in issuing an injunction against payment on letters of credit because the beneficiary's demands for payment were fraudulent, lacking any colorable basis under the underlying contract, and the customer had no adequate remedy at la
• Malone v. Costin
  410 So. 2d 569· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-02-11 ·cited 34×
  Sally Malone appealed an interlocutory order granting attorney's fees and costs against her on a motion to compel discovery. The Florida First District Court of Appeal held that the order was not properly appealable under interlocutory appeal rules and declined to grant common la
• NEW Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery OF THE Bible Presbyterian Church v. NEW Jersey State Bd. OF Higher Educ.
  654 F.2d 868· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-14 ·cited 34×
  The majority's rule allowing federal plaintiffs, not parties to a state proceeding, to interfere with that proceeding is unprecedented and contrary to established precedent.
• Jacobson & Co., Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Co.
  548 F.2d 438· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff raised sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and demonstrated a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.
• Seeler v. The Trading Port, Inc.
  517 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 34×
  A district court should issue an interim bargaining order under § 10(j) when a union has a card majority and the employer commits egregious unfair labor practices that make a fair election impossible, to restore the pre-violation status quo.
• Honorable Jim Fuller v. Truncale
  50 So. 3d 25· Fla. 1st DCA· 2010-11-02 ·cited 33×
  A Florida appellate court held that a Clerk of Courts enjoys judicial immunity from a class action lawsuit brought by drivers alleging he improperly recommended license suspensions without scheduling hearings. The court granted a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's orde
• Nussbaumer v. State
  882 So. 2d 1067· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-08-27 ·cited 33×
  Pastor Nussbaumer sought certiorari to quash orders compelling him to disclose confidential communications with defendant Bloom in a child molestation case. The court held that Bloom's communications with Pastor Nussbaumer were protected by Florida's clergy communications privile
• Harley Shipbuilding Corp. & Howard Harley v. Fast Cats Ferry Serv., LLC.
  820 So. 2d 445· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-07-10 ·cited 33×
  Harley Shipbuilding sought certiorari review to quash a circuit court order compelling production of allegedly trade-secret-privileged documents and awarding sanctions. The Florida appellate court held that the trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering p
• Int'l Kennel Club OF Chicago, Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc.
  846 F.2d 1079· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-05 ·cited 33×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in granting a preliminary injunction due to unclear likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Finkelstein v. Se. Bank, N.A.
  490 So. 2d 976· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-05-07 ·cited 33×
  This case addresses whether a trial court may issue a preliminary injunction freezing assets in a private family trust prior to judgment in a Florida RICO and Anti-Fencing Act civil suit. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the injunction, holding that while such relief
• Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Town OF Parker
  776 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court's finding of irreparable harm to the Town was clearly erroneous because the alleged economic injury was speculative and compensable by monetary damages.
• Roso-Lino Bev. Distribs., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Bottling Co. OF NEW York, Inc.
  749 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a district court retains the power to grant a preliminary injunction even when ordering parties to arbitrate a dispute, and that the plaintiff met the standard for such an injunction.
• DAN River, Inc. v. Icahn
  701 F.2d 278· 4th Cir.· 1983-01-07 ·cited 33×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's grant of interlocutory relief, finding that Dan River is likely to succeed on claims of tender offer violations and irreparable harm, and that the public interest supports maintaining the status quo.
• Mattern v. Mathews
  582 F.2d 248· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that due process requires a pre-recoupment oral hearing for "waiver" cases under section 204(b) of the Social Security Act, but a post-recoupment hearing is sufficient for "reconsideration" cases.
• Dorfmann v. Boozer
  414 F.2d 1168· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-16 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted because adequate legal remedies existed and the injunction failed to balance the equities between the parties.
• Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea
  170 So. 3d 125· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-07-02 ·cited 32×
  Gawker Media sought a writ of mandamus to prevent trial from proceeding on July 6, 2015, arguing the trial court violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 by scheduling trial without observing the mandatory fifty-day waiting period between service of the last pleading and tr
• Painewebber Inc. v. Hartmann
  921 F.2d 507· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 32×
  The court should reverse the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction because the timeliness of an arbitration demand is a question for the arbitrator, not the court.
• Klitzman v. Krut
  744 F.2d 955· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a search warrant authorizing the seizure of all client files and financial records of a law firm was overbroad and violated the Fourth Amendment, warranting a preliminary injunction for the return of the seized materials.
• Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey
  734 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction over all defendants, the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the remedy at law (money damages) was adequate.
• Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co. Corp.
  719 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction without a sufficient demonstration of irreparable harm.
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. Watt
  716 F.2d 946· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction based on a likely violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) due to the agency's failure to supplement its Environmental Impact Statement after significant revis