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

• Burger King Corp. v. Hall
  770 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 6×
  A terminated franchisee's continued unauthorized use of the franchisor's trademarks constitutes infringement and unfair competition, and the franchisee cannot use wrongful termination as a defense to avoid injunctive relief.
• In re William Michael Fussell f/d/b/a F-V Ranch and Julia White Fussell v. Karen Price as Dist. Attorney of Shelby Cnty.
  928 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 6×
  A bankruptcy court may enjoin a state criminal proceeding only if the requisites of both Younger v. Harris and the Anti-Injunction Act are met, including the identification of a federally protected right threatened by the prosecution.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Kerrville BUS Co., Inc.
  925 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 6×
  An order dismissing counterclaims seeking injunctive relief is not an order refusing an injunction for purposes of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) unless the district court specifically denied the injunction, and the collateral order doctrine does not apply if n
• Caroline T. v. Hudson Sch. Dist.
  915 F.2d 752· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that allowing a school district to employ a private court reporter to make an unofficial stenographic transcript or electronic recording of a special education hearing does not violate the due process rights of an educationally handicapped child or their parents.
• Crocker Constr. Co. v. Ronny Hornsby and Carol Hornsby
  562 So. 2d 842· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-06-13 ·cited 6×
  Crocker Construction Company sought to quash a trial court's discovery order requiring disclosure of financial information about the Crocker Center project. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the discovery order, finding no fundamental error and holding that ownership i
• In re Bayless Milton Hester, III v. NCNB Tex. Nat'l Bank
  899 F.2d 361· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the district court's order denying a stay pending appeal of a bankruptcy court order, and that mandamus was not warranted as there was no clear abuse of discretion by the district court.
• In re the Search OF the Premises Known AS 6455 S. Yosemite v. United States
  897 F.2d 1549· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Meyer Blinder's appeal from the Rule 41(e) ruling must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he has been indicted, making the motion tied to a criminal proceeding in esse. The appeal of Blinder, Robinson & Company is remanded for the district court to
• Newsom v. Norris
  888 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while inmates have no property interest in continued employment as inmate advisors, they do have a liberty interest protected by the First Amendment against retaliation for exercising their speech rights.
• Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  723 F. Supp. 669· M.D. Fla.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court must consider four factors to grant a preliminary injunction: likelihood of prevailing on merits, irreparable injury, harm to opposing parties, and public interest.
• Rogers v. Bennett
  873 F.2d 1387· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Georgia educators' suit challenging the OCR's jurisdiction was not ripe for adjudication because they failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• The Video Trip Corp. v. Lightning Video, Inc.
  866 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly denied because significant contract disputes, including alleged breaches by the plaintiff, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding copyright ownership, precluding a finding of probable success on the merits.
• CBS Inc. v. Smith
  681 F. Supp. 794· S.D. Fla.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 102.031(3)(a) impermissibly restricts the First Amendment rights of the media to gather and report information by prohibiting solicitation of opinions within 150 feet of polling places.
• Forry, Inc. v. Neundorfer, Inc.
  837 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 6×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm.
• Vargas-Figueroa v. Saldana
  826 F.2d 160· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and the harm to the university outweighed the harm to the plaintiff.
• Comm. OF Cent. Am. Refugees ("Comite De Refugiados Centro-Americanos" or "Crece") v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  795 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the transfer of unrepresented aliens to detention facilities outside the San Francisco District does not, standing alone, constitute a deprivation of statutory privilege or due process rights, and thus does not warrant judicial intrusion into the Attorney Gene
• United States v. Akers
  785 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the farmer's extensive wetland alteration activities, aimed at converting them to farmland, were not exempt from Clean Water Act permit requirements and affirmed the preliminary injunction.
• Sardi's Rest. Corp. v. Sardie
  755 F.2d 717· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a realistic possibility of irreparable injury or a sharp balance of hardships in its favor.
• Captain Dale M. Hartikka v. United States
  754 F.2d 1516· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court should be affirmed because the plaintiff has shown genuinely extraordinary irreparable injury due to the stigma of a general discharge, distinguishing it from ordinary employment termination cases.
• Kenworth OF Boston, Inc. v. Paccar Fin. Corp.
  735 F.2d 622· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its antitrust claim and failed to show irreparable injury.
• Highlands Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Dep't OF Ins.
  452 So. 2d 91· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-05-29 ·cited 6×
  Hospitals appealed the Department of Insurance's denial of a request for a formal administrative hearing on additional fees for the Florida Patients' Compensation Fund and challenged assessments levied for fiscal years 1976-77 and 1979-80. The appellate court affirmed, holding th
• Smith v. Snow
  722 F.2d 630· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Georgia Parole Board's unfettered discretion in clemency proceedings means no constitutional right to procedural due process or Eighth Amendment protection against arbitrary application of the death penalty at this stage.
• United States v. Zenon
  711 F.2d 476· 1st Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appellants' objections to the injunction were without merit, affirming the district court's decision.
• John J. Franks, M.D. v. Nimmo
  683 F.2d 1290· 10th Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff had not demonstrated irreparable injury and had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Chris Simopoulos, M.D. v. Va. State Bd. OF Med.
  644 F.2d 321· 4th Cir.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action under the Younger abstention doctrine, as federal courts should not interfere with pending state proceedings.
• Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. Goldschmidt
  506 F. Supp. 350· S.D. Fla.· 1981-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits or suffering irreparable injury.
• Morris v. Diamond
  634 F.2d 1347· C.C.P.A.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate because the petitioner has not demonstrated a clear abuse of discretion or irreparable injury, and the admissibility of testimony is appealable after a final decision.
• Carter v. Heard
  593 F.2d 10· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the pro se litigant was not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief because he failed to demonstrate an actual controversy or threatened irreparable injury.
• Div. 580, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Cent. NEW York Reg'l Transp. Auth.
  556 F.2d 659· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Union failed to make a clear showing of probable success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions to warrant a preliminary injunction against Taylor Law fact-finding proceedings.
• Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  536 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that claims for attorney malpractice and bad faith against an insurer accrue when the client sustains substantial monetary injury, such as paying attorney fees or posting an appeal bond, even if all damages are not yet ascertainable. Claims against an excess insure
• MTM, Inc. v. Baxley
  523 F.2d 1255· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly abstained from hearing the merits of the case under Younger v. Harris principles.
• Bedrosian v. Mintz
  518 F.2d 396· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action because federal courts should not interfere with state court proceedings absent substantial irreparable injury, and the state's refusal to appoint out-of-state counsel was a rational exercise of discretion not v
• The AGE OF Majority Educ. Corp. v. Preller
  512 F.2d 1241· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief were barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, their claims for declaratory relief were not and must be adjudicated on the merits. The district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment claims was reversed.
• The Cnty. OF Nassau & the Nassau Cnty. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. The Cost OF Living Council & the United States
  499 F.2d 1340· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1974-06-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's orders interfering with administrative proceedings were invalid and improperly granted, and that the appeal concerning intervention was moot.
• Penn Galvanizing Co. v. Lukens Steel Co.
  468 F.2d 1021· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the interpretation of Navy specifications and antitrust claims.
• Am. News Co., Inc. v. Ladas
  454 F.2d 1237· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while mass seizures of allegedly obscene materials require a prior adversary proceeding, federal courts should not enjoin state prosecutions absent bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances. A modified injunction allowing the state to use one
• Shahidah Graham v. Minter
  437 F.2d 427· 1st Cir.· 1971-03-03 ·cited 6×
  The denial of a temporary restraining order by a single judge in a case requiring a three-judge court is not immediately appealable.
• United States v. Barrows
  404 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 6×·via Irreparable Damage
  A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief to prevent irreparable damage to government land, even if the validity of a mining claim on that land is still pending administrative determination.
• Davis v. Florida East Coast Railroad
  166 So. 2d 774· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-08-12 ·cited 6×
  A party can be enjoined from acts of harassment detrimental to public safety, even if some acts are criminal in nature, provided the injunction is not unreasonably restrictive.
• Outdoor Am. Corp. v. City OF Philadelphia
  333 F.2d 963· 3d Cir.· 1964-06-30 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts should not interfere with state criminal proceedings unless there is a clear and imminent danger of irreparable injury, which was not shown here.
• Goldammer v. FAY
  326 F.2d 268· 10th Cir.· 1964-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an injunction and damages for violation of a restrictive covenant, as the plaintiffs failed to prove substantial injury or benefit from the injunction.
• Heron v. City & Cnty. OF Denver
  317 F.2d 309· 10th Cir.· 1963-05-20 ·cited 6×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for summary judgment and in finding no irreparable damage, thus properly denying injunctive relief.
• Meredith v. Fair
  328 F.2d 586· 5th Cir.· 1962-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judges would issue their own injunction as the court's mandate and remand the case to the District Court for enforcement, while retaining contempt proceedings.
• Withlacoochee River Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Tampa Elec. Co.
  115 So. 2d 9· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-09-30 ·cited 6×
  Tampa Electric Company sought a temporary restraining order against Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative to prevent it from providing electric service to customers in a rural area, claiming the cooperative's actions exceeded its corporate authority. The Florida District Court
• Welcome Wagon, Inc. v. Morris
  224 F.2d 693· 4th Cir.· 1955-07-26 ·cited 6×·via Irreparable Damage
  The appellate court held that the restrictive covenant was void and unenforceable because it was unreasonable in duration and geographic scope, and thus affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief.
• Boston Wool Trade Ass'n v. Snyder
  161 F.2d 648· D.C. Cir.· 1947-05-05 ·cited 6×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the action because the exclusive jurisdiction for customs duty disputes lies with the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
• Whisler v. City OF W. Plains
  137 F.2d 938· 8th Cir.· 1943-10-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, as federal courts of equity should not ordinarily restrain criminal prosecutions.
• Williams v. Pub. Util. Protective League of Fla.
  130 Fla. 603· Fla.· 1938-01-12 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld an injunction preventing Miami's City Commission from settling or compromising litigation with Florida Power and Light Company in a manner that would defeat consumers' rights to a $3 million federal court judgment for electrical rate overcharges.
• Garcia v. Pardo
  63 Fla. 429· Fla.· 1912-01-01 ·cited 6×
  Garcia sought to enjoin execution of a judgment obtained against him in County Judge court, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because a County Court had been established in the county. The Florida Supreme Court held that upon creation of a County Court, the County Judge's jur
• Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. The Est. of Herbert P. Catt
  267 So. 3d 560· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-03-29 ·cited 5×
  Diversicare appeals a trial court order compelling arbitration of claims arising from a nursing home resident's death, but seeks interlocutory review of collateral issues regarding cost and attorney's fee provisions rather than the entitlement to arbitration itself. The court dis
• City of Miami v. Airbnb
  260 So. 3d 478· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-12-05 ·cited 5×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  The temporary injunction against the City's vacation rental ban was reversed as overbroad because Miami 21, which predated the state preemption statute's June 1, 2011 cutoff, is not preempted and permits short-term rentals as long as the property's predominant use remains permane