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

• N.A.A.C.P. (National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People) v. City OF Mansfield
  866 F.2d 162· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction for police hiring, finding no abuse of discretion, but remanded the fire department injunction due to subsequent events casting doubt on the harm analysis.
• Wasserman v. Gulf Health, Inc.
  512 So. 2d 234· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-08-12 ·cited 20×
  Wasserman and Continental-Health Insurance appealed a contempt finding against them, while Gulf Health cross-appealed the denial of motions to dissolve temporary injunctions. The court affirmed the contempt order but reversed and remanded regarding the injunctions, finding them d
• Loran W. Robbins v. McNICHOLAS Transp. Co.
  819 F.2d 682· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 20×
  A district court has discretion whether to use injunctive power to compel interim withdrawal liability payments pending arbitration, considering the employer's probability of success and the economic impact of the payments.
• Cnty. OF Orange v. Webster
  503 So. 2d 988· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-03-12 ·cited 20×
  Orange County appeals a temporary injunction granted to an elector challenging a newly passed Charter. The court vacated the injunction, finding that the movant failed to comply with procedural requirements for obtaining an ex parte temporary injunction under Florida Rule of Civi
• United States v. Lulac
  793 F.2d 636· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction without adequately assessing the validity of the PPST and its relationship to the State's legitimate interests, and vacated the injunction.
• W. Va. Ass'n OF Cmty. Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Heckler
  734 F.2d 1570· D.C. Cir.· 1984-05-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while appellants have standing, their claims regarding FY83 funds are moot because all funds have been disbursed, and it declines to reach the merits of FY84 claims due to procedural issues and potential mootness.
• Baggett v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg.
  717 F.2d 521· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 20×
  Abstention under Younger or Burford is inappropriate when a state administrative proceeding is preempted by federal law, as the state tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
• Vander Malle v. Ambach
  673 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction requiring the state to pay for the handicapped child's interim placement, finding a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Robustiano Puga & Medmolds, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp.
  374 So. 2d 552· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-07-31 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the trial court's grant of a temporary injunction enforcing a non-competitive agreement under Florida Statutes § 542.12(2), finding the defendants failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion and that irreparable injury was adequately shown.
• Smith v. Grady
  411 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction limiting picketing, the absolute prohibition on uttering any sounds was an abuse of discretion and must be modified to allow non-violent, non-threatening speech.
• Speedry Prods., Inc. v. DRI Mark Prods., Inc.
  271 F.2d 646· 2d Cir.· 1959-11-06 ·cited 20×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion as to source or product, and also failed to show irreparable harm, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Meiselman v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp.
  180 F.2d 94· 4th Cir.· 1950-02-09 ·cited 20×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of an interlocutory injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.
• Reams v. Vrooman-Fehn Printing Co.
  140 F.2d 237· 6th Cir.· 1944-01-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a taxpayer cannot seek an injunction to restrain the collection of taxes, even if the tax is alleged to be illegal, when a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law exists, such as a refund claim.
• City of Lakeland v. State ex rel. James Harris
  143 Fla. 761· Fla.· 1940-07-19 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to reconsider whether the trial court properly struck from the defendant city's answer allegations invoking the doctrine of comparative injury in a public nuisance case involving a sewage disposal plant. The Court held that c
• Bank of Am. Nat. Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Douglas
  105 F.2d 100· D.C. Cir.· 1939-05-08 ·cited 20×
  The Court held that the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to provide bank examiners' reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for investigatory purposes. However, the Court ruled that the SEC could not make these reports public in advance of a hearing and th
• Cowan v. B. J. Skinner With the Will Annexed of the Estate of R. G. Skinner
  52 Fla. 486· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree granting a perpetual injunction against trespass and awarding damages for unauthorized removal of turpentine from pine trees. The court held that while a statutory injunction could be granted under Florida law to restrain such trespasse
• Miami-Dade Cnty. & Miami-Dade Cnty. Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez v. Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n
  103 So. 3d 236· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-12-12 ·cited 19×
  Miami-Dade County and Mayor Gimenez sought certiorari to quash a PERC hearing officer's order requiring the Mayor to testify in an unfair labor practice proceeding regarding his legislative vetoes. The Third District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that the Mayor's
• Palms W. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship v. Burns
  83 So. 3d 785· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-11-30 ·cited 19×
  Palms West Hospital petitioned for a writ of certiorari challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss claims for negligent retention of physicians, arguing the plaintiff failed to follow mandatory pre-suit screening procedures required under Florida's Medical Malp
• Reliance Wholesale, Inc. v. Godfrey
  51 So. 3d 561· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-12-22 ·cited 19×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  Reliance Wholesale appeals from a trial court's denial of its motion for a temporary injunction against former employee Godfrey for violating non-compete and non-solicitation agreements. The appellate court reversed, holding that Reliance established the statutory prerequisites f
• DiCHRISTOPHER v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs
  908 So. 2d 492· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-06-10 ·cited 19×
  DiChristopher appealed the dismissal of his request for a temporary injunction to stop Brevard County's mosquito control flooding of his property. The Fifth District affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that DiChristopher had an adequate remedy at law through inverse condem
• Derrean Gresham & Metro Fair Hous. Servs. v. Windrush P'rs, Ltd.
  730 F.2d 1417· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that proof of discriminatory housing practices is sufficient to presume irreparable injury for preliminary injunction purposes, and affirmed the preliminary injunction with modifications for specificity.
• In re Vuitton ET Fils S.A.
  606 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-25 ·cited 19×
  A plaintiff is entitled to an ex parte temporary restraining order when a proper showing of immediate and irreparable injury is made and notice is impracticable, particularly in trademark infringement cases where confusion is likely.
• Frejlach v. Butler
  573 F.2d 1026· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Kolski v. Garland Watkins
  544 F.2d 762· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 19×
  Federal courts must abstain from granting habeas relief from a pending state criminal prosecution unless extraordinary circumstances demonstrate irreparable injury, bad faith, or harassment.
• Mireille R. Alberti v. Mary Ruth Cruise
  383 F.2d 268· 4th Cir.· 1967-09-14 ·cited 19×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that the injunction order was invalid due to non-compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) and 65(d), and potentially violated the First Amendment.
• Leighton v. The ONE William St. Fund, Inc.
  343 F.2d 565· 2d Cir.· 1965-04-05 ·cited 19×
  The court held that requiring a stockholder to post security for costs in a derivative suit was reasonable, and the denial of various injunctive relief and a receiver appointment was proper, with any failure to make specific findings of fact being harmless error.
• Harbor v. Lancaster
  70 Fla. 200· Fla.· 1915-07-13 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an order denying the railway company's motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that restrained it from removing a dwelling house from church property. The court found the church trustees' bill of complaint failed to satisfy equity requirements
• H. W. Metcalf Co. v. Martin
  54 Fla. 531· Fla.· 1907-06-01 ·cited 19×
  H. W. Metcalf Company sought injunctive relief to prevent a tax collector from seizing bar fixtures due to a dispute over whether the company operated one or two places of business for licensing purposes. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the bill, holding that equi
• Shivery v. Streeper
  24 Fla. 103· Fla.· 1888-01-01 ·cited 19×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution of a preliminary injunction sought by hotel owners to prevent the conversion of an adjacent building into a livery stable. The court held that a livery stable is not a per se nuisance and equity will not interfere without proof t
• Price v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't OF Corr., Warden, Holman Corr. Facility
  920 F.3d 1317· 11th Cir.· 2019-04-10 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of the summary judgment and preliminary injunction motions, and denied the stay of execution because the appellant failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.
• State OF Cal. v. Am. Stores Co.
  872 F.2d 837· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that constituted impermissible indirect divestiture under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, but affirmed the district court's finding of a likelihood of success on the merits and irrepar
• V.N.A. OF Greater Tift Cnty., Inc. v. Heckler
  711 F.2d 1020· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the standard for issuing a status quo injunction pending administrative review should not require a "virtually certain" case, especially when administrative review would otherwise be meaningless.
• McNEILAB, Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  848 F.2d 34· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 18×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting survey evidence and presuming irreparable harm in a false comparative advertising case under the Lanham Act.
• The Parents' Ass'n OF P.S. 16 v. Quinones
  803 F.2d 1235· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as the City's plan to accommodate Hasidic students likely violated the Establishment Clause's 'primary effect' test.
• United States v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  777 F.2d 23· D.C. Cir.· 1985-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's opinion was neither a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory order, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
• Bishop v. State BAR OF Tex.
  736 F.2d 292· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while Younger v. Harris generally bars federal interference with state disciplinary proceedings, an exception exists for allegations of bad faith prosecution, which can justify injunctive relief and damages.
• Martin v. Int'l Olympic Comm.
  740 F.2d 670· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the California Civil Rights Act does not permit or require separate but equal accommodations, privileges, or services.
• Moteles v. Univ. OF Pa. & Local 506
  730 F.2d 913· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-15 ·cited 18×
  The appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and that the district court erred in excluding evidence related to the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense. The court also noted that while
• McGEHEE v. Casey
  718 F.2d 1137· D.C. Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 18×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court specially concurred, arguing there is no essential difference between upholding a secrecy agreement for classified information and seeking a prepublication injunction for the same information.
• James P. Kartell, M.D. v. Rodkey, M.D.
  687 F.2d 543· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's order allowing intervention but barring new claims is not a final order and does not constitute an appealable denial of injunctive relief, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Esposito v. Horning
  416 So. 2d 896· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-07-14 ·cited 18×
  Esposito appealed from orders granting and maintaining a preliminary injunction requiring a boat to be held at a boatyard in a dispute with Horning over ownership and a claimed repair contract. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the preliminary injunction
• Middleton-Keirn v. Stone
  655 F.2d 609· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 18×
  State employees seeking a preliminary injunction in a Title VII action after exhausting administrative remedies are presumed to suffer irreparable injury, and the district court erred by requiring them to prove it.
• Frey v. The Commodity Exch. Auth.
  547 F.2d 46· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Commodity Exchange Act and its implementing regulations do not grant a clear right to pre-hearing discovery that would justify judicial interference with ongoing administrative proceedings when discovery is denied interlocutorily.
• Tefal v. Prods. Int'l Co.
  529 F.2d 495· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding venue in New Jersey and in granting a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of trademark infringement and irreparable injury.
• Monsanto Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  463 F.2d 799· D.C. Cir.· 1972-04-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Monsanto's petition to review an FPC order was moot, and that contract actions by industrial customers against a natural gas company should be remanded to the district court for further proceedings, rather than dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Wright v. The City OF Montgomery
  406 F.2d 867· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Montgomery ordinances for Disorderly Conduct, Loitering, and Failure to Obey are constitutional on their face, as interpreted by Alabama courts, and thus federal injunctive relief is not warranted.
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Polk Pools, Inc.
  124 So. 2d 737· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-12-01 ·cited 18×
  Polk Pools, Inc. sued Metropolitan Dade County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against an alleged misinterpretation of county building ordinances requiring plumbing permits for pool construction drainage systems. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order wit
• Greylock Broad. Co. v. United States & Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  231 F.2d 748· D.C. Cir.· 1956-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The court granted a stay, preventing the FCC from processing applications for VHF Channel 10 pending the outcome of a deintermixture proceeding.
• Stoner v. S. Peninsula Zoning Comm'n
  75 So. 2d 831· Fla.· 1954-11-16 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a temporary injunction preventing the creation of a municipality in South Peninsula, Volusia County. The court held that equity courts should not enjoin the exercise of political rights granted by statute absent a clear showing of irreparable in
• Waits v. Orange Creek Turpentine Corp.
  123 Fla. 31· Fla.· 1936-02-24 ·cited 18×
  This case involves a dispute over a turpentine lease where the lessor's successor attempted to take possession of leased timber without complying with the lease's required procedures for release. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's injunction against the successo