Irreparable Harm

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

• City OF Miami Springs v. Steffen
  423 So. 2d 930· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-16 ·cited 32×
• Ambach v. Bell
  686 F.2d 974· D.C. Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Secretary's decision to use 1970 census data for fund allocation was not arbitrary or capricious, and the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• La. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  526 F.2d 898· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Commission's determination that the four-priority plan became unjust and unreasonable was not supported by substantial evidence, specifically due to a lack of record support for the finding of irreparable harm to industrial customers.
• Anonymous v. The Ass'n OF THE BAR OF the City OF NEW York & John G. Bonomi
  515 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine applies to state attorney disciplinary proceedings, barring federal injunctive and declaratory relief.
• The N. Am. Coal Corp. v. Local Union 2262
  497 F.2d 459· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was invalid due to the district court's failure to consider equitable factors and irreparable harm, and that the contempt convictions against the individual officers and the local union were invalid due to procedural errors and lack
• Danielson v. Local 275, Laborers Int'l Union OF N. Am., AFL-CIO
  479 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a showing of irreparable harm to the employer is not strictly required for a Section 10(l) injunction, and that the district court erred in denying the injunction based on this standard.
• Brittingham v. United States Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  451 F.2d 315· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the application for a writ of mandatory relief because it lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Atl. Seaboard Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  201 F.2d 568· 4th Cir.· 1953-01-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission abused its discretion by assigning a later filing date to petitioners' rate schedules, causing them irreparable harm.
• Stockinger v. Ulrike A. Zeilberger
  152 So. 3d 71· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-11-19 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the petition for writ of certiorari must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioners failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Seigler v. Bell
  148 So. 3d 473· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-09-19 ·cited 31×
  Mother petitioned for certiorari and mandamus challenging the trial court's decision to grant Grandmother's motion for rehearing/reconsideration in a child custody proceeding. The appellate court dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied the mandamus p
• Hohe v. Casey
  868 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs.
  849 F.2d 1446· Fed. Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in its determination of a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, or public interest.
• LaFLAMME v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  852 F.2d 389· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) unreasonably failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Sayles Flat Project, as substantial questions were raised regarding its significant environmental impacts.
• Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
  784 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Texaco's claims regarding the Texas bonding and lien provisions violating due process and equal protection, but lacked jurisdiction over other claims that constituted an impermissible review of the Texas state court jud
• In re Stable Mews Assocs. Stable Mews Assocs. v. Togut
  778 F.2d 121· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 31×
  The Court of Appeals lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders of bankruptcy courts, including interim fee awards.
• Kobell v. Suburban Lines, Inc.
  731 F.2d 1076· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding no reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred, as discrimination in hiring can be inferred even without a formal refusal to hire and anti-union animus need not be the sole motive.
• Keller v. The Twenty-Four Collection, Inc.
  419 So. 2d 1048· Fla.· 1982-09-09 ·cited 31×
• Cousins v. Wigoda
  463 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 31×
  The court held that vacating a preliminary injunction against a state court action seeking to suppress First Amendment rights was an abuse of discretion.
• SEA Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc.
  170 So. 3d 804· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-11-26 ·cited 30×
  Sea Coast Fire sought certiorari review of discovery orders compelling disclosure of alleged trade secrets to a business rival. The court granted the petition, holding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering production without first determ
• Coyne v. Schwartz
  715 So. 2d 1021· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-07-22 ·cited 30×
  Saturn Realty Trust sued its former lawyers, Schwartz, Gold, for malpractice based on an erroneous title certification. The defendants sought discovery of Saturn's confidential communications with its current attorneys (Ruden, McClosky) regarding the underlying litigation, claimi
• Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc.
  874 F.2d 1346· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the contract contained an implied covenant for Shoshone to stay in business for the duration of the contract, so long as its members have a need for power, and that the district court's denial of a permanent injunction should be vacated and set aside.
• Ping v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n
  870 F.2d 1369· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the procedural scheme for collecting fair share fees, including the arbitration process, was constitutionally adequate, and thus affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. v. Lenox Labs., Inc.
  815 F.2d 500· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction based on an insufficient showing of probable success on the merits and inadequate consideration of the public interest.
• A.J. Canfield Co. v. Vess Beverages, Inc.
  796 F.2d 903· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-15 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the granting of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff had a better than negligible chance of establishing trademark rights in 'CHOCOLATE FUDGE' for diet soda and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction.
• The People OF the State OF Cal. ex rel. John VAN DE Kamp v. The Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  766 F.2d 1308· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) for approving projects without complying with the Compact's requirements for environmental threshold findings.
• Mulay Plastics, Inc. v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co.
  742 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-22 ·cited 30×
  Orders imposing monetary sanctions for discovery abuse are generally not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine unless irreparable harm is shown.
• Knudsen Corp. v. Nev. State Dairy Comm'n
  676 F.2d 374· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying abstention and granting a preliminary injunction against Nevada's dairy price filing scheme, finding a high probability of success on the merits of the antitrust claims.
• Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Harris
  625 F.2d 1328· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a preliminary injunction against the operation of new HEW regulations.
• Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World
  461 F.2d 1040· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court's order limiting the scope of injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Bayless v. Martine
  430 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the students' suspensions were valid because they violated lawful directions from the Dean of Students regarding the time and place of their demonstration.
• E. Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank
  136 So. 3d 659· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-01-17 ·cited 29×
  East Avenue appealed an amended summary final judgment on three counts while other interrelated counts remained pending in the circuit court. The court treated the appeal as a certiorari petition and granted it, holding that a trial court improperly issued an executable final jud
• Vrasic v. Lome Leibel
  106 So. 3d 485· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-01-09 ·cited 29×
  Michelle Vrasic appealed a temporary injunction granted to Lome Leibel that prohibited her from using his name in commercial contexts and publishing her book containing references to him. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the 'no contact' provision but reversed the spe
• Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC
  2 So. 3d 1100· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-02-18 ·cited 29×
  Sabrina Angelino appeals the trial court's entry of a temporary injunction and constructive trust imposed in a business dispute involving competing telecommunications companies. The appellate court reversed, finding the injunction lacked specific factual findings, was overly broa
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. O'Hearn
  975 So. 2d 633· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-03-07 ·cited 29×
  State Farm sought certiorari review of two trial court orders in a first-party bad faith action: one denying its motion to dismiss as premature and one compelling production of allegedly privileged documents. The court held that while the dismissal order violated the law, State F
• Holden Cove, Inc. v. 4 MAC Holdings, Inc.
  948 So. 2d 1041· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-02-23 ·cited 29×
• Supreme Serv. Station Corp. v. Telecredit Serv. Ctr., Inc.
  424 So. 2d 844· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-23 ·cited 29×
• Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp.
  690 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and abstention doctrines do not bar federal injunctive relief, and the Michigan Take-Over Offers Act's enforcement provisions unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.
• Cmty. Commc'ns Co., Inc. v. City OF Boulder
  660 F.2d 1370· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the City's districting ordinance for cable operators raises substantial First Amendment issues and that the district court erred in granting a broad preliminary injunction to the cable company. The court modified the injunction to preserve the status quo pendi
• DOE v. Aldo Colautti
  592 F.2d 704· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Equal Protection Clause.
• Sellers v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal.
  432 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-17 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, refusing to convene a three-judge court, as there was no genuine threat of irreparable harm or chilling effect on First Amendment rights to warrant injunctive relief.
• Byrd v. S. Prestressed Concrete, Inc.
  928 So. 2d 455· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-05-02 ·cited 28×
  James Byrd sought a writ of certiorari to quash a protective order prohibiting his attorney from attending a neuropsychological examination ordered by the opposing party. The court held that Florida law establishes a right for parties to have counsel present at Rule 1.360 examina
• Jonjuan Salon, Inc. v. Acosta
  922 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-03-22 ·cited 28×
  The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a temporary injunction because the plaintiff likely established a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Sandstrom v. Sandstrom
  565 So. 2d 914· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-08-29 ·cited 28×
  A husband appeals a temporary injunction restraining him from selling or disposing of marital assets during divorce proceedings. The Florida appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that Section 61.11 authorizes courts to enjoin dissipation of marital assets before final
• Korn v. Ambassador Homes, Inc.
  546 So. 2d 756· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-07-11 ·cited 28×
  Court affirmed temporary injunction freezing assets pending arbitration of constructive trust claim, holding that injunction is proper to preserve the res when dissipation is probable and success on the merits is reasonably likely.
• Nat'l Ry. Labor Conf. v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  830 F.2d 741· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined the disputes were "minor" under the Railway Labor Act, properly enjoined strikes, and that the conditions placed on the injunction to maintain the status quo were appropriate to preserve the adjustment board's jurisdicti
• Prof'l Plan Exam'rs OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Lefante
  750 F.2d 282· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred by extending restraints without proper findings and by improperly abstaining from deciding federal constitutional and antitrust claims.
• Feinstein v. Dolene, Inc.
  455 So. 2d 1126· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-09-19 ·cited 28×
  Marvin Feinstein sought certiorari review of a trial court's denial of his motion to control a lis pendens filed by Dolene, Inc. in a dispute over a joint venture to develop real property. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the lis pendens was not founded on a duly rec
• Ebel v. City OF Corona
  698 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Ebel met the standard for a preliminary injunction, as there were serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipped decidedly in her favor.
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc.
  630 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that structural similarity alone does not bar patentability for a new chemical compound; its unexpected properties must also be considered. The district court did not err in finding cephalexin nonobvious and did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary in
• Ashley v. United Transp. Union & ITS Affiliated Local NO. 1121
  625 F.2d 1357· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not bar injunctive relief because the picketing did not arise from a labor dispute involving the union's economic self-interest, and federal jurisdiction existed under the Railway Labor Act to preserve dispute settlement procedures