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
-
The court held that plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to a preliminary injunction as a matter of law, reversing the denial.
-
The court held that a preliminary injunction to prevent a referendum vote on a proposed ordinance is not warranted because the ordinance is not facially unconstitutional and the issue of its constitutionality is not ripe for adjudication.
-
631 F.2d 24·
3d Cir.·
1980-10-07
·cited 2×
An order denying a motion to disqualify opposing counsel is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine if the alleged harms are not irreparable and can be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment.
-
The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, thus denying their application for a preliminary injunction.
-
382 So. 2d 330·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1980-01-23
·cited 2×
Tri-Plaza Corporation and Don T. Davis appealed a trial court order granting a temporary mandatory injunction that appointed a trustee to manage promissory note payments in a real estate dispute. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court abused its dis
-
The court held that appellants must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention, as there was no clear jurisdictional defect or irreparable injury.
-
598 F.2d 1146·
8th Cir.·
1979-05-25
·cited 2×
The court granted a stay of execution of a preliminary injunction pending appeal and expedited the appeal.
-
Judicial relief was premature because the plaintiff can obtain adequate relief through the administrative process.
-
-
559 F.2d 876·
2d Cir.·
1977-07-27
·cited 2×
The appeals are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court's orders denying class-based preliminary injunctive relief are not appealable interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
-
The court affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction, finding that the controversy regarding future enforcement of the statute was speculative and that no immediate irreparable injury would occur.
-
The court held that the district court erred in concluding that a tender offer would likely result in only a minimal stock transfer, and remanded for consideration of the merits.
-
The Court granted a stay of the District Court's order and judgment pending appeal, finding that the appellants met the criteria for such a stay.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof required for a preliminary injunction, and thus the denial of the injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
-
A party cannot maintain a separate action for an injunction based on claims that were raised as a compulsory counterclaim and dismissed in a pending action.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting a stay of state proceedings and dismissing the habeas corpus petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies or demonstrate futility.
-
531 F.2d 922·
8th Cir.·
1976-03-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction because the student demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm from being excluded from cross-country competition based on her sex.
-
525 F.2d 211·
10th Cir.·
1975-11-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the application for review of the class certification order was premature and dismissed the appeal.
-
529 F.2d 601·
4th Cir.·
1975-09-30
·cited 2×
A party must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief, even if claiming irreparable harm, unless no remedy exists.
-
514 F.2d 1119·
8th Cir.·
1975-04-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against new beef grading standards pending a full hearing.
-
509 F.2d 641·
9th Cir.·
1975-01-08
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellants' complaint failed to state a claim for equitable relief due to lack of alleged irreparable harm and inadequate legal remedy, but erred in dismissing the action without allowing an opportunity to amend.
-
297 So. 2d 69·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1974-06-14
·cited 2×
The State of Florida sought to enjoin a movie theater from exhibiting obscene films. The trial court found the films obscene but denied permanent injunctive relief, reasoning the State failed to prove irreparable harm and the defendant's intent to continue exhibition. The appella
-
498 F.2d 947·
2d Cir.·
1974-06-03
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits or that irreparable harm would occur without the injunction.
-
The court should affirm the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
-
486 F.2d 176·
3d Cir.·
1973-10-01
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court erred in restraining the SCI from referring by name to individuals during public hearings, as such practice does not inherently violate due process or exceed the SCI's investigatory function.
-
Federal courts must abstain from enjoining state administrative and judicial proceedings when a party can raise constitutional claims in state court.
-
The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted without a final judgment and proof of irreparable harm.
-
The United Steelworkers appeals a trial court's temporary injunction issued without notice against union picketing at Seminole Asphalt Refining's plant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the unverified petition and affidavit were legally insufficient to support an ex par
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's request for a preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the irreparable injury required for federal injunctive relief against the ordinance.
-
The court held that challenges to the use of an unpatented millsite claim and the propriety of a Special Use Permit must first be pursued through administrative remedies before judicial review is available.
-
Federal courts should not enjoin state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury.
-
The court held that the case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding federal injunctions against state proceedings.
-
The court held that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enjoin the state court action and that the referee's findings were adequate.
-
The court held that a federal court may enjoin a state district attorney from initiating criminal prosecutions under state nuisance laws to frustrate federal development of the Outer Continental Shelf, as such actions interfere with federal power and lack an adequate remedy at la
-
The court granted the union's motion to stay the district court's order pending appeal, finding substantial questions regarding EEOC's authority and the propriety of summary judgment.
-
The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate imminent and irreparable injury.
-
393 F.2d 126·
4th Cir.·
1968-03-21
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show immediate and irreparable harm.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from interfering with a pending state criminal proceeding, despite the plaintiff's claim of federal constitutional rights violations.
-
The court held that the complaint was procedurally improper for challenging a statute's constitutionality and failed to adequately plead irreparable injury.
-
Federal courts cannot interfere with threatened state criminal proceedings unless there is clear and imminent irreparable injury.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction when the plaintiff failed to present evidence to support his allegations despite the defendant's verified answer denying them.
-
133 So. 2d 344·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1961-09-29
·cited 2×
An injunction restraining a law action is improper where the law court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter and is competent to try the issues, and no unconscionable advantage or irreparable harm is shown.
-
The federal court should have retained jurisdiction rather than dismissing the case, allowing state courts to determine the issues while preserving federal oversight.
-
A single circuit judge should not issue an injunction that would effectively decide the merits of an appeal, especially when the trial court has already denied a similar injunction.
-
271 F.2d 820·
5th Cir.·
1959-11-16
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction based on weak evidence of a prevailing price and irreparable harm, and that the injunction overlooked the public's interest in legal price cuts.
-
The court affirmed the district court's denial of an injunction but reversed the judgment to the extent it declared the rights of the parties, finding that the redevelopment plan's contemplated segregation, even if voluntary, could constitute state action due to extensive governm
-
The court held that the district court erred in issuing a permanent injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the clear and immediate danger of irreparable injury required for federal equitable intervention to restrain state criminal proceedings.
-
American Telephone & Telegraph Company sought a temporary injunction to prevent property owner John G. Barrow from interfering with AT&T's underground cable facilities and easement rights on his land in Nassau County, Florida. The trial court granted the injunction, finding that
-
The court affirmed the District Court's judgments, upholding the deputy commissioner's findings and orders regarding employer status and compensation defaults.