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

• Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc.
  805 F.2d 351· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-13 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction because Tri-State demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, a public interest favoring the injunction, and raised serious questions going to t
• S. Monorail Co. v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.
  666 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the threatened harm to the movant did not outweigh the harm to the non-movant.
• Hardin v. The Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co.
  572 F.2d 1106· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctions because the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable injury.
• State OF Cal. ex rel. C. B. Christensen v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  549 F.2d 1321· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-03 ·cited 29×
  Judicial intervention in FTC proceedings is premature when administrative remedies have not been exhausted, absent a clear jurisdictional defect or irreparable injury beyond litigation costs.
• Jonjuan Salon, Inc. v. Acosta
  922 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-03-22 ·cited 28×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  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.
• Alva Gutierrez v. Mun. Court OF the Se. Jud. Dist.
  838 F.2d 1031· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against an English-only rule, finding a likelihood of success on the merits under Title VII and the possibility of irreparable injury. It also held that the judges were not ent
• SAN Diego Comm. Against Registration & THE Draft (Card) v. The Governing Bd. OF the Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist.
  790 F.2d 1471· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the school newspapers constitute a limited public forum, and the Board's exclusion of CARD's anti-draft advertisement, while permitting military recruitment advertisements, constituted viewpoint-based discrimination violating the First Amendment.
• 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.
• In re Worksite Inspection OF Quality Prods., Inc.
  592 F.2d 611· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-16 ·cited 28×
  The district court should have dismissed Quality's motion to suppress for want of equity, as Quality had an adequate remedy within the OSHA administrative and judicial review process.
• S. Ohio Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  551 F.2d 695· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a union's refusal to cross stranger picket lines is not an arbitrable dispute subject to injunction under Boys Markets, and that injunctions against district and international unions require more than mere notice.
• Cap. City GAS Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  373 F.2d 128· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a permanent injunction without proper notice and a full hearing on the merits, and that a temporary injunction was not warranted due to a lack of irreparable injury.
• Woods v. Theo R. Wright
  334 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1964-07-20 ·cited 28×
  The denial of a temporary restraining order in this case is appealable because the delay until final judgment would cause irreparable loss and moot the claims. The district court should have entered a temporary restraining order.
• BAY N Gulf, Inc. v. Anchor Seafood, Inc.
  971 So. 2d 842· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-10-24 ·cited 27×
  Bay N Gulf appealed the trial court's dissolution of a temporary injunction preventing Anchor Seafood from conveying frozen seafood. The court affirmed, holding that a trial court has continuing discretion to dissolve a temporary injunction and that the trial court did not abuse
• Charlotte Cnty. v. Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc.
  653 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-13 ·cited 27×
  Charlotte County challenges the Florida Public Service Commission's assertion of jurisdiction over a billing dispute with a water utility after the utility's certificate was cancelled and its facility sold to a governmental entity. The court upholds the PSC's jurisdiction, findin
• United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-Op
  833 F.2d 172· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court applied an erroneous and overly restrictive legal standard in denying the government's motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce the FDCA.
• Baldwin Metals Co., Inc. v. Donovan
  642 F.2d 768· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 27×
  Federal district courts should not exercise jurisdiction to invalidate OSHA search warrants or suppress evidence before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) has rendered a final administrative decision, as parties must exhaust administrative remedies and e
• State Rd. Dept. v. Newhall Drainage Dist.
  54 So.2d 48· Fla.· 1951-08-10 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's injunction against the State Road Department and the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District. The injunction prevented the construction of culverts and canal deepening that would divert floodwaters into the Newhall
• Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz
  194 So. 3d 434· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-05-06 ·cited 26×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  The court held that all elements for injunctive relief were satisfied, reversing the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction.
• Pecora v. Pecora
  697 So. 2d 1267· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-01 ·cited 26×
  Emily Pecora appeals a temporary injunction order that her estranged husband Raymond obtained against her, barring her from the business premises of two corporations they jointly owned. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the injunction despite procedural defects, findi
• Save THE Yaak Comm. v. J.R. Block
  840 F.2d 714· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to adequately analyze environmental impacts, connected actions, and cumulative impacts, and that the Endangered Species Act claim was jurisdictionally barred due to insufficient notice.
• Friends FOR ALL Child., Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
  746 F.2d 816· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that District of Columbia tort law recognizes a cause of action for the cost of diagnostic examinations necessitated by a defendant's negligence, even in the absence of proven physical injury, and that a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring the defendant to f
• Spiegel v. City OF Houston
  636 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was overly broad and reversed its issuance, remanding for revision.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. City OF Janesville
  630 F.2d 1254· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the City to reinstate the Chief of Police, as the City's reliance on state legislative judgment regarding a bona fide occupational qualification for protective service empl
• Ekanem v. The Health & Hosp. Corp. OF Marion Cnty.
  589 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury.
• Sid Casey v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  578 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal courts should not intervene to prevent the FTC from investigating union locals and their officers, as the unions failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a clear lack of FTC jurisdiction, and the issue of § 10's constitutionality was not justiciable
• Goodrich v. Supreme Court OF the State OF S.D.
  511 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a federal court should not intervene in ongoing state disbarment proceedings absent a showing of great and immediate irreparable injury, and that issues previously decided by a state court are res judicata.
• Literature, Inc. v. Quinn
  482 F.2d 372· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 26×
  A single district judge lacks jurisdiction to deny injunctive or declaratory relief or dismiss a complaint when a substantial constitutional question is raised and equitable relief is formally alleged, requiring a three-judge court.
• A. L. K. Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.
  440 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1971-04-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a prerequisite for a preliminary injunction, because potential lost income from a unique film could be adequately remedied by monetary damages.
• Crowther v. Seaborg
  415 F.2d 437· 10th Cir.· 1969-09-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of irreparable harm.
• The W. E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc.
  354 F.2d 868· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-03 ·cited 26×
  A preliminary injunction against trademark infringement is modified to allow the sale of existing inventory, but further use of the infringing mark is prohibited.
• Imperial Chem. Indus. Ltd. v. Nat'l Distillers & Chem. Corp.
  354 F.2d 459· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable injury.
• Knight v. The City of Miami
  127 Fla. 585· Fla.· 1937-03-29 ·cited 26×
  Property owners sought equitable relief to enjoin the City of Miami from summarily destroying their rental dwelling houses without notice or hearing. The Florida Supreme Court held that the bill stated a valid claim for equitable jurisdiction because the owners lacked an adequate
• Baltazar Salazar and Walter Salazar Pest Control v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc.
  230 So. 3d 619· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-11-17 ·cited 25×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  The trial court's order granting a temporary injunction must contain specific factual findings supporting the necessary elements for injunctive relief, and must address affirmative defenses.
• DePUY Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman
  95 So. 3d 928· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-08-03 ·cited 25×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  DePuy Orthopaedics appealed a trial court's denial of its motion for a temporary injunction to enforce non-compete covenants against three former sales representatives. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the non-compete covenants were properly assigned to DeP
• Cap. ONE, N.A. v. Forbes
  34 So. 3d 209· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-05-12 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court's protective order sufficiently protected the bank's trade secrets, and that discovery of other claims did not cause irreparable harm.
• Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Coop. Corp. v. Prime One Cap. Co.
  125 F. Supp. 2d 1093· S.D. Fla.· 2000-12-19 ·cited 25×
  The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding conversion claims.
• Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc. v. Benitez
  748 So. 2d 358· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-12-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting an ex parte temporary injunction without strict compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(a).
• Sarasota Bev. Co. v. Johnson
  551 So. 2d 503· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-08-02 ·cited 25×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  Sarasota Beverage Company appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction to enforce a noncompetition agreement against former employee Johnson who was hired by competitor Blaikie & Sons. The court reverses, holding that when a noncompetition agreement is reasonable as to time and
• Sierra Club v. Marsh
  816 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Army Corps of Engineers violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing construction to continue without ensuring mitigation lands were secured and by refusing to reinitiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Reserve Mining Co. v. United States
  498 F.2d 1073· 8th Cir.· 1974-06-04 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a stay of the injunction should be granted pending appeal because the evidence did not support a finding of substantial health danger, and Reserve was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal regarding the health issue.
• 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
• DON King Prods., Inc. v. Chavez
  717 So. 2d 1094· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-09-15 ·cited 24×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  The statutory presumption of irreparable injury for breach of a restrictive covenant is rebuttable, not conclusive.
• W.J. Spradley, Jr. v. OLD Harmony Baptist Church
  721 So. 2d 735· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-07-27 ·cited 24×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  The court reversed an injunctive order issued by the trial court that imposed requirements on the appellants regarding use of disputed property by a church, finding the injunction was legally insufficient because it was entered sua sponte without a proper request, contained manda
• Sundance Land Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  840 F.2d 653· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 24×
  Sundance has standing to seek injunctive relief under HOLA because its injury is a foreseeable consequence of the alleged illegal loan, but it lacks standing to seek damages due to the indirect nature of its injury.
• Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  671 F.2d 587· D.C. Cir.· 1982-02-19 ·cited 24×
  Orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) accepting a rate filing and suspending its effective dates are generally nonreviewable by courts, as they are not final, do not cause irreparable injury, and fall within the agency's discretion.
• Malt v. Simmons
  405 So. 2d 1018· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-10-21 ·cited 24×·via Irreparable Damage
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court's denial of a protective order against certain interrogatories in a dispute involving collection practices and emotional distress claims. The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, finding the interrogatories
• N.C. State Ports Auth., Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Dart Containerline Co. Ltd.
  592 F.2d 749· 4th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 24×
  A preliminary injunction should not have been granted because the plaintiff did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a probability of irreparable injury.
• N. Atl. Westbound Freight Ass'n v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States
  397 F.2d 683· D.C. Cir.· 1968-05-16 ·cited 24×
  The court denied the application for a stay of the Federal Maritime Commission's order accepting CML's tariffs for filing.
• Baggett Transp. Co. v. Hughes Transp., Inc.
  393 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1968-04-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a temporary injunction, as it had jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C.A. § 322(b)(2) and the circumstances warranted such relief despite a pending review action in another district court.
• Amerada Petroleum Corp. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  285 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1960-12-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the order denying Amerada's offer of compromise and settlement was interlocutory and therefore not appealable.