Irreparable Harm

2,255 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,513 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• DOE v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist.
  986 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against school-sponsored prayer and affirmed the denial of intervention as modified.
• Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc.
  988 F.2d 61· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that new evidence of additional trademarks used by the defendant, not presented to the district court, warrants vacating the denial of a preliminary injunction and remanding for reconsideration.
• City OF Boynton Beach v. Finizio
  611 So. 2d 74· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The City of Boynton Beach appealed a temporary injunction and mandamus writ issued in favor of employee Vincent Finizio regarding implementation of a Civil Service Board's favorable grievance decision. The court reversed the injunction because loss of employment does not constitu
• United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc.
  982 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Aswegan v. Henry
  981 F.2d 313· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 2×
  Prisoners do not have a right to a specific means of access to the courts, and the ISP's policy does not deny them adequate access.
• Thomas v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  978 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-21 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the majority erred in reversing the preliminary injunction based on a de novo review of the facts and blurring the distinction between preliminary and permanent injunctions.
• Allstate Ins. v. Preston
  842 F. Supp. 1441· S.D. Fla.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that while continued state court litigation after removal is improper, a federal court cannot enjoin such proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act unless an exception applies, and the relitigation exception does not apply to a dismissal without prejudice.
• Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott
  973 F.2d 507· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction and granted a preliminary injunction enforcing non-competition and confidentiality covenants, but erred in modifying the injunction based on an incorrect interpretation of Ohio law.
• Diamond v. Interstate Trading Corp.
  606 So. 2d 631· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-09-01 ·cited 2×
  In this interlocutory appeal, defendants Diamond challenged a temporary injunction freezing their commercial bank account based on ITC's fraud and contract claims. The court reversed the injunction, holding that ITC failed to establish the essential elements of equitable relief—s
• Henderson v. Lane
  979 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clearly established right to more frequent showers or exercise, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. The denial of preliminary injunctive relief was also affirmed.
• Schoolcraft v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  971 F.2d 81· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the class action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that waiver of exhaustion was appropriate under the circumstances.
• Goodheart Clothing Co., Inc. v. Laura Goodman Enters., Inc.
  962 F.2d 268· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's judgment, based on a Rule 68 offer and acceptance, should be affirmed, including the award of attorney's fees.
• In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc.
  963 F.2d 855· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to protect the debtor's reorganization efforts, even without a full evidentiary hearing, and that the recusal issue was not preserved
• Palm Beach Commerce Ctr. Associated, Ltd. v. Walker
  598 So. 2d 165· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-04-29 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Damage
  A taxpayer seeking to enjoin the issuance of tax certificates pending a challenge to property valuation must demonstrate the good faith of their partial tax payment.
• The Middleby Corp. v. Hussmann Corp.
  962 F.2d 614· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's consolidation of two cases, one seeking enforcement of an arbitration award and the other alleging fraud, did not constitute a final appealable order.
• McLaughlin Ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Williams
  801 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×·via Substantial Threat Of Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that the state's policy of refusing to fund liver/small bowel transplants was likely unreasonable and the procedure could not be deemed experimental on the current record.
• Holland v. Collins
  950 F.2d 169· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in granting a stay of execution because the movant failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation or satisfy the legal standards for a stay. The dissenting judge contends that the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the
• Hernando Marin v. Batista
  590 So. 2d 523· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-12-10 ·cited 2×
  An attorney refused to return $58,000 held in trust for his client, claiming he would withhold the funds until compensated for services despite no agreement authorizing such a setoff. The appellate court denied certiorari review, finding the trial court's order was not final and
• State OF N.C. v. City OF Va. Beach
  951 F.2d 596· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decisions to enjoin construction pending FERC's environmental review and to deny the motion to alter or amend the injunction.
• Mich. Coal. OF Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog
  945 F.2d 150· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court granted the defendants' motion for a stay of the district court's judgment pending appeal, finding they demonstrated a sufficient probability of success on the merits regarding personal jurisdiction and irreparable harm.
• Vuitton v. Helene White
  945 F.2d 569· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  An order denying an application for an ex parte seizure order under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) is immediately appealable as a denial of an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the district court's refusal to grant such an order in this case was an abuse of discretion.
• Overholt Crop Ins. Serv. Co. v. Travis
  941 F.2d 1361· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that awarding both liquidated and compensatory damages for the same conduct, or for overlapping breaches, is improper and can render the liquidated damages clause a penalty.
• Cellular Sales, Inc. v. MacKay
  942 F.2d 483· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the name 'Cellular Sales' is generic and not entitled to trade name protection, and the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm.
• Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Milwaukee v. Alberts
  937 F.2d 77· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 2×
  A preliminary injunction enforcing surety rights of exoneration and quia timet was improvidently granted because the surety failed to establish irreparable harm flowing solely from the loss of those rights.
• United States v. State OF Colo.
  937 F.2d 505· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court cannot unilaterally modify the terms of a consent decree agreed upon by the parties, as this constitutes an abuse of authority.
• Niagara Hooker Emps. Union v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
  935 F.2d 1370· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction against the employer's random drug testing program because it did not sufficiently frustrate the arbitral process.
• Showa Denko Am., Inc. v. Hopkins
  586 So. 2d 65· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-06-14 ·cited 2×
  Showa Denko sought a writ of certiorari challenging a circuit court's denial of a blanket protective order for documents in a products liability lawsuit. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that while blanket protection was properly denied, the company could still se
• Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc.
  936 F.2d 417· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the PGA's U-groove ban, finding serious questions on the merits and that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in favor of the plaintiffs.
• Lakedreams v. Taylor
  932 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that Lakedreams demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim.
• Cuban Museum of Arts & Culture, Inc. v. City of Miami
  766 F. Supp. 1121· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the City of Miami's decision to deny the Cuban Museum continued possession of its leased premises was substantially motivated by the Museum's exercise of its First Amendment rights in exhibiting controversial art, and thus the City's actions were unconstitutio
• Edwards v. Dir., Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't OF Labor, Eagle Ins. Grp.
  932 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the Benefits Review Board's order staying compensation benefits was appealable under the collateral order doctrine and was improvidently granted due to lack of irreparable injury and specificity.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Martinez
  761 F. Supp. 782· M.D. Fla.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the Governor, Attorney General, and Department of Transportation were improperly named as defendants because the statute at issue did not grant them any duties or enforcement powers regarding the local ordinances enacted under it.
• Christian Knights OF THE KU Klux Klan Invisible Empire, Inc. v. The Dist. OF Columbia
  919 F.2d 148· D.C. Cir.· 1990-10-27 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court should affirm the district court's order allowing petitioners to use the traditional march route.
• Ross v. Zavarella
  916 F.2d 898· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of an appealable order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or that the order could only be effectively challenged by immediate appeal.
• Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Incentive Internationale Travel, Inc.
  566 So. 2d 1377· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-09-20 ·cited 2×
  Airlines Reporting Corporation sought to terminate its agency agreement with Incentive Internationale Travel, Inc. and recover airline tickets and identification plates after a dispute over unpaid sales proceeds. The court held that a principal may terminate an agency relationshi
• Bennett Salamon, M.D. v. Karan Munuswamy, M.D., P.A.
  566 So. 2d 899· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-09-12 ·cited 2×
  A medical employer sought and obtained a temporary injunction against his former employee to enforce a noncompetition agreement restricting the employee from practicing medicine within seven miles of the employer's office for 24 months. The appellate court affirmed the injunction
• Alvy Thomas McQUEEN v. Bullock
  907 F.2d 1544· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act barred federal jurisdiction over claims challenging state tax collection, and sovereign immunity barred claims against the United States for alleged violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).
• Local Union NO. 733 OF the Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division
  906 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction against the employer's drug testing program pending arbitration, as traditional arbitral remedies could address potential harm.
• In re The Matter of the Search OF Kitty's E. v. United States
  905 F.2d 1367· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-07 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, that the revised Rule 41(e) applied, and that the seizures were lawful and did not unreasonably deprive Kitty's of its property.
• United Mine Workers OF Am. 1950 Benefit Plan & Tr. v. Bituminous Coal Operators' Ass'n, Inc.
  898 F.2d 177· D.C. Cir.· 1990-02-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the parol evidence rule to exclude contemporaneous memoranda that clarified the BCOA's obligation to increase contribution rates. The court found the BCOA's interpretation of the agreement as granting unbridled discretion u
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. K.A.W.
  557 So. 2d 601· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-01-31 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  A client's consent to representation prevents disqualification, and insurance companies lack standing to assert privilege against adverse representation.
• In re King World Prods., Inc.
  898 F.2d 56· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a temporary restraining order enjoining the broadcast of surreptitiously obtained video footage constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to overcome the heavy
• Alessi v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  893 F.2d 1444· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from awarding relief for violations of state law, even if framed as a procedural due process claim.
• The Hibernia Sav. Bank v. Ballarino
  891 F.2d 370· 1st Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that injunctive relief for disclosure violations requires traditional equitable grounds like irreparable harm, which were not met here after the deficiencies were cured.
• Multicredit, Inc. v. Ecoban Cap. Ltd.
  555 So. 2d 1249· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-11-21 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The dissenting opinion argues that a defendant's guilty plea to first-degree murder was valid, even though the defendant was not informed of the mandatory twenty-five-year parole restriction, because the defendant was aware of the direct consequences of the plea.
• Cinema Blue OF Charlotte v. Gilchrist
  887 F.2d 49· 4th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts must abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings unless there's a clear showing that the state proceeding won't adequately protect constitutional rights.
• The Town OF Huntington v. Marsh
  884 F.2d 648· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 2×·via Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the district court erred in reimposing a permanent injunction without balancing equities and conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine actual or threatened irreparable environmental injury.
• Cotter v. Desert Palace, Inc.
  880 F.2d 1142· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a significant possibility of irreparable injury or a fair chance of success on the merits.
• Jeep Corp. v. Sanders
  546 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-06-22 ·cited 2×
  Jeep Corporation and AMC obtained an Ohio injunction preventing an ex-employee from testifying against them in litigation. When that employee was called as a witness in a Florida product liability case, the Florida trial court enjoined AMC from enforcing the Ohio injunction. The
• Greenwood v. City OF Delray Beach
  543 So. 2d 451· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, lack of an adequate remedy at law, or a clear legal right to relief, particularly given the significant delay in challe