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

• Anderson v. Tower Amusement Co.
  118 Fla. 437· Fla.· 1935-02-16 ·cited 18×
  Marie W. Anderson sought injunctive relief to prevent Tower Amusement Company and D. V. Marquis from interfering with her tenant's possession of leased premises in violation of a restrictive covenant. The Florida Supreme Court granted a constitutional writ of injunction on appeal
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Reaume
  937 So. 2d 1120· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-07-28 ·cited 17×
  Progressive Express Insurance Company challenged a summary judgment finding that its paid-in-full customer discount constituted an illegal financing charge. The court held that insurance rate disputes must first be resolved through administrative proceedings with the Florida Offi
• Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Mander
  932 So. 2d 314· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-02-01 ·cited 17×
  The Florida High School Activities Association (FHSAA) appealed a temporary restraining order allowing a private-school student to play volleyball on a public middle-school team. The appellate court reversed the order because it was issued without reasonable notice to the FHSAA a
• N. Am. Prods. Corp. v. Moore
  196 F. Supp. 2d 1217· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the employer established a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the employee's material breach defense and the enforcement of the 1998 non-solicitation agreement, but not the 1991 agreement due to unresolved novation issues.
• P.M. Realty & Invs., Inc. v. City OF Tampa
  779 So. 2d 404· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-08-25 ·cited 17×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  P.M. Realty & Investments, Inc. appeals a preliminary injunction granted to the City of Tampa to enforce a zoning ordinance requiring special use permits for adult entertainment businesses. The court affirms the injunction and rejects P.M.'s constitutional challenges, holding tha
• Heslop v. Earnest Moore, Jr.
  716 So. 2d 276· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-05-20 ·cited 17×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  A former husband sought a temporary injunction to prevent his ex-wife from receiving lottery winnings she had won during their separation but concealed during their divorce proceedings. The appellate court reversed the injunction, holding that the ex-husband failed to establish t
• ST. George v. State
  564 So. 2d 152· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-06-14 ·cited 17×
  Gregory St. George appealed his direct criminal contempt conviction after refusing to comply with a court order requiring him to verbally disclose his true identity and personal information. The appellate court held that the contempt conviction must be vacated because the underly
• Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., Inc.
  886 F.2d 1173· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-03 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement, as non-literal components of software can be protected expression and substantial similarity was sufficiently shown.
• Instant AIR Freight Co. v. C.F. AIR Freight, Inc.
  882 F.2d 797· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 17×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding irreparable harm and that injunctive relief was warranted.
• GTE Corp. v. Williams
  731 F.2d 676· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-06 ·cited 17×
  Delay in seeking a preliminary injunction, when coupled with no specific harm beyond presumed confusion, is a significant factor that can justify denial of the injunction.
• LeFLORE v. Robinson
  434 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that certain Mobile ordinances were facially unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth, violating First Amendment rights, and that abstention was inappropriate.
• Bellamy v. Bellamy
  4 Fla. 242· Fla.· 1851-01-01 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals from interlocutory decrees in chancery cases, only from final decrees. The court dismissed an appeal from a decree that appointed a receiver, ordered an accounting, and retained the bill for further pr
• Rodger Bookall v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
  995 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-12-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an ex parte temporary injunction is invalid if it fails to state the reasons why notice was not required.
• Life Care Ctrs. OF Am. v. Reese
  948 So. 2d 830· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-01-19 ·cited 16×
  Life Care Centers of America sought certiorari review of a discovery order compelling production of documents and privilege logs in response to 195 overly-broad production requests without the trial court first ruling on the defendants' general overbreadth objections. The Fifth D
• Kaisha v. Swiss Watch Int'l, Inc.
  188 F. Supp. 2d 1350· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• The State Chem. Mfg. Co. v. Lopez
  642 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-09-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a presumption of irreparable injury applies to customer solicitation, but not to employment by a competitor, and that the non-compete agreement's duration was reasonable.
• Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert
  934 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the tribe's motion for a preliminary injunction, as the tribe failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Congregation Lubavitch and Rabbi Sholom B. Kalmanson v. City OF Cincinnati
  923 F.2d 458· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 16×
• Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecomms. Grp.
  900 F.2d 1546· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in basing a preliminary injunction on a finding of 'secondary meaning in the making,' as this doctrine is not recognized under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and the evidence was insufficient to establish actual secondary meaning.
• Modern Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc.
  871 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a choice of law provision in a franchise agreement may be unenforceable if it violates a fundamental public policy of the state with a materially greater interest in the transaction, even if the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties.
• Painewebber Inc. v. Farnam
  843 F.2d 1050· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 16×
• B.J. Pearce v. Doral Mobile Home Villas, Inc.
  521 So. 2d 282· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-03-04 ·cited 16×
  Mobile home park tenants challenged a discovery order requiring disclosure of their personal finances and assets in an unconscionable rent increase lawsuit. The court held that such irrelevant financial discovery is improper and violates principles protecting tenants from harassm
• Lewis OIL Co., Inc. v. Alachua Cnty.
  496 So. 2d 184· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-10-06 ·cited 16×
  Lewis Oil Company appealed the dismissal of its declaratory judgment action challenging the validity and enforceability of Alachua County's underground storage tank ordinance. The court reversed, holding that the ordinance had not become effective pending DER approval and that Le
• Calash v. City OF Bridgeport
  788 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Kennedy Stadium is a nonpublic forum, and the City's policy restricting its use to civic, charitable, and non-profit organizations is a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restriction, thus the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Chesebrough-Pond's Inc.
  747 F.2d 114· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-30 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, finding that neither party demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.
• Conway Meats, Inc. v. Orange Ave. P'ship
  440 So. 2d 674· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-11-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a temporary restraining order and impleading Conway Meats, Inc. without sufficient showing and proper procedure.
• Grumman Corp. v. The LTV Corp.
  665 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly issued a preliminary injunction against LTV's tender offer for Grumman based on antitrust grounds under the Clayton Act.
• Goldberger v. Regency Highland Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  383 So. 2d 1173· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-06-04 ·cited 16×
  A temporary mandatory injunction was improperly issued without bond, as the alleged injuries were not irreparable and the procedural requirements for waiving the bond were not met.
• Jacksonville Mar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  571 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 16×
  The employer must allege and prove willingness to arbitrate and resort to contractual arbitration machinery as a prerequisite to a Boys Markets injunction.
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co.
  545 F.2d 1050· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-28 ·cited 16×
  Section 16 of the Clayton Act is an "expressly authorized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, allowing federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings when necessary to protect federal antitrust claims.
• BOB Jones Univ. v. Connally
  472 F.2d 903· 4th Cir.· 1973-01-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the strict test for enjoining tax collection should not be applied in this case, potentially raising constitutional questions about the tax code.
• N. Avondale Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth.
  464 F.2d 486· 6th Cir.· 1972-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to show probable success on the merits and the housing project was substantially complete.
• Krahm v. Graham
  461 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-10 ·cited 16×
  A federal court may enjoin pending state prosecutions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if "special circumstances" demonstrate bad faith enforcement and irreparable injury, but a blanket requirement for prior adversary hearings before all future prosecutions is overbroad.
• Croskey St. Concerned Citizens v. Romney
  459 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction against the construction of a low-rent housing project.
• Murray v. Kunzig
  462 F.2d 871· D.C. Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge maintains their original position, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation of precedent and its implications for judicial oversight of the civil service.
• Sutton Cosmetics (P. R.) Inc. v. Lander Co., Inc.
  455 F.2d 285· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the first bona fide user of an abandoned trademark does not automatically acquire secondary meaning rights associated with the mark.
• Duncan v. Leander H. Perez, Jr.
  445 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district judge accurately applied the criteria established in Younger v. Harris for granting federal injunctive relief against state prosecutions.
• Honey v. Goodman
  432 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes that § 1983 is not an exception to the prohibition in § 2283 against federal courts enjoining state proceedings.
• Cnty. OF Santa Barbara v. Hickel
  426 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a right to an agency hearing before additional oil drilling, and thus the denial of a preliminary injunction on non-constitutional grounds was not an abuse of discretion.
• Armour & Co. v. Freeman
  304 F.2d 404· D.C. Cir.· 1962-02-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Secretary of Agriculture's regulation requiring genuine hams with added moisture to be labeled "Imitation Ham" was arbitrary and capricious on its face, forcing a violation of the Meat Inspection Act.
• United States & White Cnty. Bridge Comm'n ex rel. United States v. White Cnty. Bridge Comm'n
  275 F.2d 529· 7th Cir.· 1960-01-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the complaint stated a cause of action for equitable relief under Public Law 37, allowing the United States Attorney to bring the action, but that removal of a commissioner was not authorized.
• W. A. Mack, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  260 F.2d 886· 7th Cir.· 1958-11-13 ·cited 16×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should not have been issued because it granted the plaintiff the actual advantage obtainable in a final decree, and the case should be given precedence for an early trial on the merits.
• Norris, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  177 F.2d 26· D.C. Cir.· 1949-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an employer cannot seek an injunction to prevent a representation election but must instead follow the statutory appeal process after an unfair labor practice finding.
• Standard Dredging Corp. v. Henderson
  150 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1945-06-19 ·cited 16×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that an award of death benefits must specify that payments are to continue only during dependency, and that the record lacked sufficient findings on the parents' dependency and its duration.
• Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Santos
  118 So. 3d 317· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-07-31 ·cited 15×
  Publix petitioned for certiorari to quash a trial court discovery order requiring it to produce incident reports from all Publix stores statewide. The court granted the petition, holding that under Florida's slip-and-fall statute (§ 768.0755), discovery must be limited to the spe
• Ophelia Brown v. McKINNON
  964 So. 2d 173· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-08-01 ·cited 15×
• Siegel v. LePore
  120 F. Supp. 2d 1041· S.D. Fla.· 2000-11-13 ·cited 15×
  Federal courts should not intervene preliminarily in state election procedures, as the state's interest in conducting its elections and the potential for federal overreach outweigh the plaintiffs' speculative claims of injury from manual recounts.
• Associated Gen. Contractors OF Cal., Inc. v. Coal. FOR Econ. Equity
  950 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court properly denied AGCC's request for preliminary injunctive relief because AGCC failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable harm.
• Nutrition 21 v. The United States
  930 F.2d 867· Fed. Cir.· 1991-03-29 ·cited 15×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to set forth adequate findings of fact to support the preliminary injunction, necessitating its vacation.
• Atwood Turnkey Drilling, Inc. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, S.A.
  875 F.2d 1174· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 15×·via Substantial Threat Of Irreparable Injury
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a preliminary injunction and that the injunction was properly granted. Petrobras is not immune from suit due to a waiver of sovereign immunity in the contract.