Irreparable Harm

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

• United States v. Bedford Assocs.
  618 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the government's appeal from the preliminary injunction's condition requiring payment of utilities, and that the district court had jurisdiction to impose such a condition, but the injunction must be modified.
• "Americans United" Inc. v. Walters
  477 F.2d 1169· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-11 ·cited 28×
  The court did not decide the merits of the case, only that constitutional issues warranted a three-judge court.
• Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Ltd.
  454 F.2d 527· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction over Bombardier was proper under the Massachusetts long arm statute and that the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Maas v. United States
  371 F.2d 348· D.C. Cir.· 1966-11-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to prevent the dissemination of a prisoner's manuscript, as the government's interest in law enforcement and prison order outweighed the appellant's claims.
• Tower Credit Corp. v. State
  183 So. 2d 255· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-02-01 ·cited 28×
  Defendants appeal from an interlocutory order extending a temporary restraining order and appointing a receiver under Florida's Blue Sky Law for alleged securities violations. The appellate court affirms the order, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate an abuse of discret
• Reed Enters. v. The Honorable Howard F. Corcoran
  354 F.2d 519· D.C. Cir.· 1965-12-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that petitioners' complaints raised substantial constitutional questions and allegations of irreparable harm, requiring the convening of three-judge district courts to hear the challenge to the 1958 amendment of obscenity statutes.
• Elsner v. E-Commerce Coffee Club
  126 So. 3d 1261· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-11-20 ·cited 27×
  Business partners sought to quash a discovery order requiring production of financial documents from defendants in a breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation case. The court denied the certiorari petition, holding that financial information relevant to the subject matter of
• Poston v. Wiggins
  112 So. 3d 783· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-05-17 ·cited 27×
  A defendant in a negligence action sought certiorari to quash a discovery order requiring disclosure of her medical and pharmacy records. The court dismissed the petition regarding pre-accident pharmacy records as premature but granted it regarding post-accident medical records,
• Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Ill. Commerce Comm'n
  740 F.2d 566· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to stay proceedings and properly granted a preliminary injunction, as the federal law issues and the ongoing nature of the state court proceedings weighed against abstention, and the utility demonstra
• Helfenbein v. Int'l Indus., Inc.
  438 F.2d 1068· 8th Cir.· 1971-01-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that federal antitrust laws do not provide a basis for enjoining state court arbitration proceedings or eviction actions for the collection of ordinary debts, even if those debts are related to allegedly illegal tie-in agreements.
• Concerned Citizens FOR Jud. Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci
  162 So. 3d 68· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-09-03 ·cited 26×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a temporary injunction prohibiting an electioneering organization from publishing information about a judicial candidate during a political campaign, holding that the injunction constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment
• Univ. Med. Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc.
  51 So. 3d 1191· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-01-05 ·cited 26×
  University Medical Clinics and its president Dr. Sadow appealed a trial court's grant of temporary injunctive relief to Quality Health Plans, a Medicare HMO, preventing them from soliciting QHP members to disenroll and requiring production of medical records. The appellate court
• State v. Rygwelski
  899 So. 2d 498· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The State sought certiorari review of a trial court's order declaring section 812.155(4)(b) unconstitutional as a mandatory presumption relieving the State of its burden to prove fraudulent intent in a failure-to-return-leased-property prosecution. The appellate court held that t
• Vargas v. Vargas
  771 So. 2d 594· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-11-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction, but the bond amount was inadequate.
• Carl Citron, M.D. v. Shell
  689 So. 2d 1288· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-03-26 ·cited 26×
  This case concerns whether a trial court properly denied a motion to dismiss a medical malpractice complaint when the plaintiff failed to provide the statutorily required pre-suit corroborating medical expert opinion. The court held that while the plaintiff's failure to comply wi
• United Farm Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp.
  681 So. 2d 773· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-09-20 ·cited 26×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal quashed a temporary ex parte injunction against the United Farm Workers of America prohibiting picketing at Quincy Farms because the trial court failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Florida Rule of Civil Procedur
• Dusan Sabol, M.D. v. Bennett
  672 So. 2d 93· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-04-24 ·cited 26×
  The appellate court held that the trial court's order denying a motion to compel compliance with a prior discovery order, and requiring leave of court for further deposition, departed from the essential requirements of law and caused irreparable harm.
• Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott
  869 F.2d 1306· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 26×
  The court should hold the Church estopped from appealing the denial of its subsequent application for preliminary relief.
• Arcamuzi v. Cont'l AIR Lines, Inc.
  819 F.2d 935· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of retaliation to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• Minimatic Components, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  494 So. 2d 303· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-09-24 ·cited 26×
  Minimatic Components and Leon Shaw appealed a temporary injunction issued by the trial court that prevented Shaw from ousting Westinghouse from leased premises in Minimatic's manufacturing plant. The appellate court vacated the injunction, finding it was issued without adequate n
• People OF the Vill. OF Gambell v. Hodel
  774 F.2d 1414· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as it failed to give proper weight to the statutory policy protecting Native Alaskan subsistence needs and culture.
• Stewart v. Lubbock Cnty.
  767 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief should have been dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction due to insufficient Article III standing, as past wrongs do not establish a real and immediate threat of future injury.
• Merrill Lynch v. Bradley
  756 F.2d 1048· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 26×
  Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a district court has discretion to grant a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration if the enjoined conduct would render the arbitration process a 'hollow formality'.
• Citibank v. Citytrust & Citytrust Bancorp, Inc.
  756 F.2d 273· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a prerequisite for a preliminary injunction, due to their significant delay in seeking relief and other factors.
• Norlin Corp. v. Rooney
  744 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction barring Norlin from voting stock transferred to its subsidiary and ESOP, as these actions likely violated corporate law and fiduciary duties.
• Fla. Land Co. v. Orange Cnty.
  418 So. 2d 370· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-08-18 ·cited 26×
  Florida Land Company appealed the denial of its motion for a temporary injunction to halt Orange County's Ordinance 81-14, which allocated sewage treatment capacity. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the injunction would serve th
• The MacHlett Labs., Inc. v. Techny Indus., Inc.
  665 F.2d 795· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law, and the balance of hardships and public interest did not favor the injunction.
• Otero Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. The Fed. Reserve Bank OF Kan. City
  665 F.2d 275· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the Reserve Bank lacked statutory authority to refuse processing of the associations' checks and drafts.
• Vanco Constr., Inc. v. Nucor Corp.
  378 So. 2d 116· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-01-02 ·cited 26×
  Vanco Construction, a third-party defendant, sought common law certiorari review of the trial court's order denying its motion for summary judgment in a contribution/indemnity action. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that orders denying summary judgment are not su
• Nat'l Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke
  608 F.2d 819· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of certain state regulations, as the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not bar a judicial determination of federal preemption.
• Gen. Aircraft Corp. v. Irwin S. Lampert
  556 F.2d 90· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while appellants violated Section 13(d) by failing to file a timely and accurate Schedule 13D, they should not have been enjoined from voting their legally acquired shares as no irreparable harm was shown for that specific relief.
• Buffler v. Elec. Computer Programming Inst., Inc.
  466 F.2d 694· 6th Cir.· 1972-08-30 ·cited 26×
  An order granting a preliminary injunction against arbitration proceedings is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the district court improvidently exercised its discretion in issuing such an injunction without sufficient basis.
• Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. The Est. OF Ashley Lawson
  175 So. 3d 327· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-08-28 ·cited 25×
  Shands Teaching Hospital sought certiorari review of an order denying its motion to dismiss a negligence complaint arising from a psychiatric patient's death. The court held that the estate's complaint, despite alleging ordinary negligence, actually sounds in medical negligence b
• Summitbridge Nat'l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, L.L.C.
  67 So. 3d 448· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-08-26 ·cited 25×
  Summitbridge seeks certiorari to quash a circuit court order compelling disclosure of acquisition pricing information from a loan purchase agreement, which Summitbridge claims is a trade secret. The court holds that the circuit court erred by ordering disclosure without first con
• Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster
  932 So. 2d 344· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-03-10 ·cited 25×
  Florida Hospital Waterman sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring production of self-policing documents under Amendment 7 (the Patients' Right To Know Amendment), challenging whether the amendment preempts statutory privileges, is self-executing, and should appl
• Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Jorge J. Leal, M.D.
  917 So. 2d 336· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-12-23 ·cited 25×
  Cape Canaveral Hospital sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring it to submit allegedly privileged peer review documents for in camera inspection to determine whether a reasonable belief existed that grounds for discipline existed prior to initiating a peer revie
• Eberhardt v. Eberhardt
  666 So. 2d 1024· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-01-24 ·cited 25×
  This case clarifies that Florida's certiorari jurisdiction for reviewing discovery orders has not been expanded by the Supreme Court's decision in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston. The court emphasizes that discovery of irrelevant materials alone does not constitute irreparable
• M.M. Cassim, M.D. v. Bowen
  824 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-12 ·cited 25×
  A physician is not entitled to a full evidentiary hearing before suspension from Medicare, as the existing pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to respond, coupled with a right to a prompt post-deprivation hearing, satisfy due process.
• Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh
  812 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of confusion, and the record precluded a presumption of irreparable harm.
• Plains Cotton Coop. Ass'n OF Lubbock v. Goodpasture Computer Serv., Inc.
  807 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm for its copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims.
• Garcia v. Lawn
  805 F.2d 1400· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the appeal was not moot because reinstatement could still provide effective relief, and remanded for consideration of irreparable harm beyond economic loss, specifically the chilling effect of retaliation on other employees' exercise of Title VII rights.
• Fla. Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy
  471 So. 2d 203· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-06-19 ·cited 25×
  Florida Cypress Gardens sought review of a discovery order compelling production of accident investigation photographs and files from its liability insurer's adjuster. The court held that such materials constitute protected work product prepared in anticipation of litigation and
• Black Hills Jewelry Mfg. Co. v. Gold Rush, Inc.
  633 F.2d 746· 8th Cir.· 1980-11-13 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the use of "Black Hills Gold Jewelry" to describe jewelry not manufactured in the Black Hills constitutes a false designation of origin under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, entitling appellees to injunctive relief.
• Uni-Chem Corp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Maret
  338 So. 2d 885· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-10-26 ·cited 25×
  Uni-Chem Corporation sought a temporary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement against former salesmen who violated the covenant by immediately joining a competitor. The trial court denied the temporary injunction, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that even with a
• Salem INN, Inc. v. Frank
  501 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 25×
  The court held that federal courts should not intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other special circumstances, even if the federal suit was filed first.
• Landmark AT Crescent Ridge LP v. Everest Fin., Inc.
  219 So. 3d 218· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-05-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petition for certiorari must be dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the trial court's order denying the motion to dissolve the lis pendens caused irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on appeal.
• Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins
  975 So. 2d 1169· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-03-06 ·cited 24×
  Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling full discovery of approximately 69 million pages of closing files from Commonwealth and 1,000+ independent title agents before class certification was determined. The First Distri
• Popular Bank of Fla. v. Banco Popular Puerto RICO
  9 F. Supp. 2d 1347· S.D. Fla.· 1998-06-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding its trademark infringement claim, finding its mark had acquired secondary meaning.
• Zarco Supply Co. v. Bonnell
  658 So. 2d 151· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-07-17 ·cited 24×
  Zarco Supply Company sought disqualification of two law firms representing plaintiffs in a personal injury action arising from a car accident. The court held that despite the former client's consent, the firms were disqualified due to the irrefutable presumption of confidential d
• Boston Celtics Ltd. P'ship v. Shaw
  908 F.2d 1041· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lawfully enforced the arbitration award and issued a preliminary injunction, as the arbitration award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and the district court properly considered the factors for injunctive relief.