Irreparable Injury

1,544 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 167 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Collins v. Cnty. OF Kendall
  807 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support an inference of bad faith prosecution, thus the district court properly abstained under the Younger doctrine.
• Zalman v. Armstrong
  802 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris principles because a state criminal proceeding was pending when the federal action was filed, and no extraordinary circumstances justified federal intervention. The court vacated the district cou
• Sundor Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc.
  653 F. Supp. 86· M.D. Fla.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 10×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of confusion between the parties' products and trade dress, which constitutes irreparable injury.
• Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Ctr., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. & W. Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Ctr.
  475 So. 2d 260· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-08-20 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Court of Appeal held that a Certificate of Need (CON) initially granted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is preliminary agency action, not final agency action, and therefore a hemodialysis center applicant cannot legally operate a health care fa
• Lancor v. Lebanon Hous. Auth.
  760 F.2d 361· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of harms favored granting a preliminary injunction.
• Am. Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Commc'ns, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of irreparable injury to support a preliminary injunction, reversing the district court's decision.
• Interox Am. v. PPG Indus., Inc.
  736 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding breach of contract and trade secret claims.
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donovan
  733 F.2d 920· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The Court of Appeals holds that the District Court erred in recharacterizing the appellants' motion as one for preliminary injunction and remands for the District Court to determine if the Secretary violated the prior mandate.
• Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharm. Co., Inc.
  719 F.2d 56· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against Bolar for imitating Ciba's trade dress.
• Perlowin v. Sassi
  711 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the termination assessment was invalid due to the IRS's failure to issue a timely notice of deficiency, injunctive relief was not automatically granted and required a showing of irreparable harm and lack of adequate legal remedy.
• United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr.
  711 F.2d 38· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a stay of the district court's order should be granted pending appeal.
• Bruce Drug, Inc. v. Hollister Inc.
  688 F.2d 853· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-08 ·cited 10×
  The majority opinion erred by applying a standard bordering on de novo review rather than the 'clearly erroneous' standard for preliminary injunctions.
• Petraco-Valley OIL & Ref. Co. v. United States Dep't OF Energy
  633 F.2d 184· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1980-05-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Petraco's application for injunctive relief and its appeal from the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order should be denied and dismissed, respectively, because Petraco failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a likelihood of success on th
• State OF Ariz. v. Maricopa Cnty. Med. Soc'y
  643 F.2d 553· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the maximum reimbursement schedules in question cannot be branded per se violations of the Sherman Act without more experience and evidence of their effects on competition.
• Md. Undercoating Co., Inc. v. Payne
  603 F.2d 477· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to balance the potential harm to the defendant with the potential harm to the plaintiff when granting a preliminary injunction and by incorrectly concluding that the defendant's new employer was in competition with the plain
• Garza v. Tex. Educ. Found., Inc.
  565 F.2d 909· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
• Mayview Corp. v. Rodstein
  480 F.2d 714· 9th Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 10×
  A preliminary injunction in a patent case requires a special showing of the likelihood of prevailing on the merits, including proof that the patent's validity has been established beyond question, which was not met here.
• Berrigan v. Sigler
  475 F.2d 918· D.C. Cir.· 1973-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a temporary restraining order preventing parolees from traveling to North Vietnam was appealable due to the irreparable loss of the opportunity and potential mootness, and that the Parole Board's justifications for denial were insufficient to ove
• Sweeten v. Sneddon
  463 F.2d 713· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The federal court improvidently granted an injunction against a state misdemeanor prosecution, as the plaintiff had adequate state remedies and the potential impact on parole status did not constitute irreparable injury. Furthermore, the injunction was overly broad under Argersin
• Asa Lloyd Peoples v. The City OF Birmingham
  440 F.2d 1352· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-09 ·cited 10×·via Irreparable Damage
  Federal injunctive relief is inappropriate without specific allegations of irreparable harm like bad faith prosecution or harassment.
• Porter L. Fortune, Jr. v. Molpus
  431 F.2d 799· 5th Cir.· 1970-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the University's request for a stay pending appeal must fail because it did not meet the necessary conditions, specifically a likelihood of prevailing on the merits and avoiding substantial harm to others.
• Garlock, Inc. v. United Seal Inc.
  404 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Captain Howard Brett Levy v. Honorable Howard F. Corcoran
  389 F.2d 929· D.C. Cir.· 1967-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and application for a stay, finding that the petitioner had an adequate remedy at law and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against military proceedings.
• J. M. Fields OF Anderson, Inc. v. The Kroger Co.
  310 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1962-11-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the evidence supported findings of notice and irreparable injury.
• Schlosser v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
  250 F.2d 478· 7th Cir.· 1958-01-02 ·cited 10×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that a preliminary injunction requiring payment of disputed funds before a final determination of the merits is generally not warranted, especially when the underlying claim is controverted.
• Chicago & N. W. Ry. v. First Nat. Bank of Waukegan
  200 F.2d 383· 7th Cir.· 1952-12-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the district court erred in dismissing the action.
• Pac. Am. Fisheries, Inc. v. Mullaney
  191 F.2d 137· 9th Cir.· 1951-06-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the summary judgment was erroneous because the appellant was not given an opportunity to present evidence on factual issues and the case presented grounds for declaratory and injunctive relief.
• Green v. Ivey
  45 Fla. 338· Fla.· 1903-01-01 ·cited 10×
  This case concerns a dispute between licensed ferry operators over the right to operate competing ferries across the Suwannee River near Branford, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an injunction against defendants' unlicensed ferry operation but reversed the portion pre
• Allied Universal Corp. v. Given
  223 So. 3d 1040· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-03-15 ·cited 9×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  Allied Universal Corporation appealed the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enforce a non-compete agreement against former employee Jeffrey Given. The appellate court reversed, holding that Given failed to rebut the statutory presumption of irreparable
• USI Ins. Servs. OF Fla. Inc. v. Pettineo
  987 So. 2d 763· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-07-16 ·cited 9×
  USI Insurance Services appeals the denial of a temporary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement against the seller of an insurance agency it purchased. The court reversed, finding the trial court applied an outdated version of Florida's restrictive covenant statute that im
• Avante Villa AT Jacksonville Beach, Inc. v. Candyce Breidert
  958 So. 2d 1031· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-06-05 ·cited 9×
  Avante Villa, a nursing home, sought review of an order compelling discovery of quality assurance documents, arguing nursing homes are excluded from Florida Amendment 7's definition of 'health care facility' and 'health care provider.' The First District Court of Appeal held that
• Lewis v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
  949 So. 2d 1114· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-02-16 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a temporary injunction without notice to the opposing party, as the motion and order failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610.
• Florida Democratic Party v. Hood
  342 F. Supp. 2d 1073· N.D. Fla.· 2004-10-21 ·cited 9×
  Federal law mandates allowing voters to cast provisional ballots even if at the wrong polling place, but does not require counting such ballots if cast at the incorrect precinct.
• Am. II Elecs., Inc. v. Smith
  830 So. 2d 906· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-11-20 ·cited 9×
  America II Electronics sought a temporary injunction against its former employee Joel Smith to enforce a non-compete agreement. The circuit court denied relief based on an outdated legal standard, but the appellate court reversed, holding that under the applicable 1996 statute, v
• LEE Cnty. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.
  805 So. 2d 893· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-10-12 ·cited 9×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  Lee County challenged the South Florida Water Management District's emergency plan to discharge large volumes of fresh water from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosahatchee River estuary to save the lake's dying fish population. The court affirmed the denial of the county's petition
• Jones v. Jones
  761 So. 2d 478· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-06-30 ·cited 9×
  Roy Jones appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that prevented him from removing his children from his former wife's custody pending resolution of a custody modification motion. The appellate court reversed, finding the temporary injun
• Airport Executive Towers v. CIG Realty, Inc.
  716 So. 2d 311· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-07-29 ·cited 9×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  Airport Executive Towers appeals from a temporary injunction that restrained it from moving net proceeds from the sale of its real property out of Florida. The court reversed, holding that the injunction was an extraordinary remedy that CIG failed to justify because CIG had an ad
• Parfums Stern, Inc. v. United States Customs Serv.
  575 F. Supp. 416· S.D. Fla.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 9×
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary prerequisites, including a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Livingston v. Garmire
  442 F.2d 1322· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-10 ·cited 9×
  A federal court cannot enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution unless the plaintiff proves great and immediate irreparable injury, and mere vagueness or overbreadth of a statute is insufficient without bad faith or harassment.
• Calagaz v. DeFRIES
  303 F.2d 588· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Mrs. F. J. Bochterle v. Fla. Milk Co., Inc.
  132 Fla. 827· Fla.· 1938-06-15 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's appointment of a receiver pendente lite for a married woman's separate property (a coffee shop and dining room) without notice to the defendant, holding that the allegations of insolvency and the defendant's intent to leave t
• NRD Invs., Inc. v. Velazquez
  976 So. 2d 1· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-12-05 ·cited 8×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  NRD Investments appealed a trial court's temporary injunction requiring it to restore a tenant's office to pre-construction condition. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the tenant Dr. Velazquez met all requirements for injunctive relief and that the trial court properly
• Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. COX
  947 So. 2d 561· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-12-27 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring it to pay the costs of providing notice to members of a certified class action involving destruction of citrus trees under the Citrus Canker Eradication Program.
• Zbigniew-Jacob Litwinczuk, M.D. v. Palm Beach Cardiovascular Clinic, L.C.
  939 So. 2d 268· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-10-18 ·cited 8×
  Dr. Litwinczuk appeals a temporary injunction enforcing a non-competition covenant that prohibited him from practicing cardiology within a reduced geographical area of Palm Beach County for two years after leaving his employer. The court affirmed the injunction, finding the clini
• Broward Cnty. v. Meiklejohn
  936 So. 2d 742· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-08-23 ·cited 8×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  Broward County appealed a trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction reinstating a terminated employee who alleged discrimination and retaliation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in presuming irreparable harm in employment discrimination case
• Edrick Donaldson v. State
  895 So. 2d 1220· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-02-28 ·cited 8×
  Edrick Donaldson petitioned for certiorari review of a trial court order finding him competent to stand trial, claiming the court violated his due process rights by refusing to allow his expert to testify while only considering two court-appointed experts' opinions. The appellate
• Taylor v. Cesery
  717 So. 2d 1112· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-09-28 ·cited 8×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  Martha Cesery Taylor appeals from a trial court order denying her motion for temporary injunctive relief to prevent the sale of a $2.5 million oceanfront estate property and discharging her lis pendens. The court affirmed the denial of the injunction but reversed the discharge of
• Health Care Mgmt. Consulting, Inc. v. McCOMBES
  661 So. 2d 1223· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-09-22 ·cited 8×
  HCMC sought injunctive relief to enforce a non-compete covenant against McCombes, its former employee, alleging trade secret misappropriation and customer solicitation. The trial court dissolved the injunction, but the appellate court reversed, finding that McCombes's direct soli
• Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co.
  971 F.2d 6· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-23 ·cited 8×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a likelihood of success on its false advertising claim and that irreparable harm was not adequately rebutted.
• Miami Elecs. Ctr., Inc. v. Moises Saporta and Gladys Saporta
  597 So. 2d 903· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-04-21 ·cited 8×
  Miami Electronics Center appealed a trial court judgment that allowed defendants to eliminate a non-compete covenant through majority vote and dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract and fraud claims. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the damages claims but reversed