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

• United States (Plaintiff in D.C.) v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  533 F.2d 107· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-26 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper because the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate irreparable injury from the withholding of Medicaid funds.
• Henderson v. Burd
  133 F.2d 515· 2d Cir.· 1943-02-09 ·cited 15×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was properly granted regarding sales of nylon hose, but the injunction's scope regarding other hosiery was too broad and needed modification.
• Lucius v. Judd
  783 F. Supp. 2d 1183· M.D. Fla.· 2019-08-16 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because he failed to comply with procedural rules.
• Hilb Rogal & Hobbs OF Fla., Inc. v. Grimmel
  48 So. 3d 957· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-12-01 ·cited 14×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  HRH, an insurance broker, appeals the trial court's dissolution of a temporary injunction against former employee Grimmel, who violated a non-piracy clause by soliciting HRH's customers after starting a competing firm. The court reversed, holding that HRH established a legitimate
• Autonation, Inc. v. O'Brien
  347 F. Supp. 2d 1299· S.D. Fla.· 2004-12-02 ·cited 14×
  The court granted AutoNation's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding the non-compete agreement.
• Corporate Mgmt. Advisors, Inc. v. Boghos
  756 So. 2d 246· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-04-28 ·cited 14×
  Corporate Management Advisors sued its former employee for breach of restrictive covenants in an employment agreement. The trial court found the agreement void and unenforceable despite the employee's admitted violation, but the appellate court reversed, holding that overly broad
• The Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Alena Kartenovich
  749 So. 2d 1290· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-02-24 ·cited 14×·via Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm
  The Florida High School Activities Association appealed a temporary injunction granted to The Berkshire School and four student-athletes who sought to compete in state basketball tournaments despite an FHSAA sanction for recruiting violations. The court reversed the injunction, h
• Dennis K. King, M.D., P.A. v. John G. Jessup, M.D.
  698 So. 2d 339· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-15 ·cited 14×
  Dr. King sought a temporary injunction to enforce a covenant not to compete against his former employee Dr. Jessup, who opened a competing medical practice nearby. The trial court denied the injunction, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Dr. King failed to demonstrate
• Rajiv Chandra, M.D. v. Gopal Gadodia, M.D.
  610 So. 2d 15· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-11-20 ·cited 14×
  Chandra sought enforcement of noncompetition agreements against two former employees who resigned after only five to six months of employment. The trial court denied the preliminary injunction based on a 1990 statutory amendment requiring proof of irreparable injury and reasonabl
• S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc.
  968 F.2d 371· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 14×
  A franchisor's right to terminate a franchise agreement for non-payment of royalties is independent of any claims the franchisee may have against the franchisor for breach of contract, and post-termination unauthorized use of the trademark constitutes infringement.
• Banco Indus. de Venezuela v. Suarez
  541 So. 2d 1324· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-04-18 ·cited 14×·via Irreparable Damage
  This case involves an appeal by Banco Industrial de Venezuela (BIV) against an order dissolving a temporary injunction. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Florida RICO Act provides for preliminary injunctions with less stringent requirements
• Miss. Women's Med. Clinic v. McMILLAN
  866 F.2d 788· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 14×
• Elree COX, Jr. v. City OF Chicago & Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local 2, Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO
  868 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their Title VII disparate impact claim.
• Cedrick Holmes v. Fisher
  854 F.2d 229· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 14×
  An order denying injunctive relief is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) even if a request for damages remains pending, and a plaintiff whose personal claim is moot at the time of filing cannot represent a class seeking equitable relief.
• Ray v. Sch. Dist. of DeSoto Cnty.
  666 F. Supp. 1524· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the exclusion of HIV-positive hemophiliac children from regular classrooms.
• Humana, Inc. v. Avram A. Jacobson, M.D., P.A.
  804 F.2d 1390· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that service of process was validly perfected under state rules after an attempted mail service failed, and the record supported the district court's finding of irreparable injury justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Mann v. Jett
  781 F.2d 1448· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that abstention is appropriate in this case because the appellant can adequately litigate his claim in the ongoing state criminal proceedings.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Evans Prods. Co.
  775 F.2d 1084· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that preliminary injunctive relief under § 13(b) of the FTC Act is not available for past violations that are not likely to recur, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying ancillary equitable relief.
• Foltz v. U.S. News & World Report
  760 F.2d 1300· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Profit-Sharing Plan was improper and remanded for further consideration, as the Plan's distribution of assets could extinguish a potential ERISA claim, constituting irreparable injury.
• Hyatt Corp. v. Hyatt Legal Servs. & Joel Hyatt
  736 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 14×
• City OF Bedford v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  718 F.2d 1164· D.C. Cir.· 1983-10-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not violate the Federal Power Act by issuing preliminary permits without investigating potential joint ventures with private developers, as the agency's enforcement priorities and reliance on certification were reas
• Mesa Petroleum Co. v. Cities Serv. Co.
  715 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 14×
  The Oklahoma Take-Over Bid Act violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because its indirect burden on interstate commerce is excessive in relation to the local interests it serves, mirroring the unconstitutional Illinois statute in Edgar v. MITE Corp.
• Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. Nimmo
  711 F.2d 28· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the veterans must exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief regarding the VA's cost recovery program.
• Henry v. Gentry Plumbing & Heating Co.
  704 F.2d 863· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a supersedeas bond properly stayed enforcement of the interim default judgment pending appeal, but a general stay of compensation payments pending administrative appeal can only be granted by the Benefits Review Board.
• Dotolo v. Schouten
  426 So. 2d 1013· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-01-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that injunctive relief is the only adequate remedy to prevent the continuing misappropriation of a trade secret, and irreparable injury may be presumed in such cases.
• Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Connolly
  686 F.2d 1029· 1st Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction based solely on preemption by the Williams Act, finding it not sufficiently probable that the state statute was preempted. The court remanded for consideration of the commerce clause issue.
• Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified
  525 F. Supp. 186· S.D. Fla.· 1981-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the State of Florida's actions in threatening arrests and prosecution constituted bad faith harassment, justifying federal injunctive relief despite the Younger v. Harris doctrine, and that the court possessed admiralty jurisdiction over the salvage dispute.
• Louis v. Meissner
  530 F. Supp. 924· S.D. Fla.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court granted a temporary restraining order, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without it, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored the injunction.
• United States v. The Composite State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  656 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should abstain from enjoining the state proceedings due to a lack of clear irreparable injury.
• Tate v. Am. Tugs, Inc.
  634 F.2d 869· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-20 ·cited 14×
  An injured seaman cannot use a preliminary injunction to compel an employer to pay a higher daily rate for maintenance when payments are already being made and a speedy trial on the merits is available.
• Harvey v. Wittenberg
  384 So. 2d 940· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-06-17 ·cited 14×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a temporary injunction against Harvey and Monroy for unlawful practice of dentistry. The court held that irreparable harm is presumed when a statute is designed to protect the public interest and specifically authorizes injunctive rel
• Ina P. Anderson v. United States
  612 F.2d 1112· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting mandatory and prohibitory preliminary injunctions because the moving party failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits or that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in her favor, and any harm was
• Hialeah, Inc. v. B & G Horse Transp., Inc.
  368 So. 2d 930· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-03-09 ·cited 14×
  B & G Horse Transportation sought a temporary injunction to prevent competitors from operating an intertrack horse transportation service without obtaining a certificate from the Florida Public Service Commission. The court reversed the injunction, holding that Section 323.24 aut
• Selchow & Righter Co. v. McGRAW-Hill Book Co.
  580 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiff showed a likelihood of irreparable injury and substantial questions going to the merits, with a balance of hardships tipping in its
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Pac. Press Publ'g Ass'n & Gen. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists
  535 F.2d 1182· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(2) because the statutory authority for such relief terminates with the EEOC's administrative process, not the resolution of private suits.
• DOE v. Mundy
  514 F.2d 1179· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding that the hospital's rule restricting abortions was likely unconstitutional and that the injunction was properly issued.
• Murry v. Am. Standard, Inc.
  488 F.2d 529· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-14 ·cited 14×
  A private individual may obtain a preliminary injunction in a Title VII action without demonstrating imminent irreparable injury, as the statute itself provides for such relief.
• ROY v. Jones
  484 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-22 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the case barred by res judicata, a ground different from the district court's abstention reasoning.
• Scooper Dooper, Inc. v. Kraftco Corp.
  460 F.2d 1204· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• LeFLORE v. Robinson
  446 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-25 ·cited 14×
  The court vacated its original opinion and remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding federal interference with state prosecutions.
• Hills Bros. Coffee, Inc. v. Hills Supermarkets, Inc.
  428 F.2d 379· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-09 ·cited 14×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction against the use of 'Hills' on coffee products was an abuse of discretion, as confusion was likely.
• Tyler v. Russel
  410 F.2d 490· 10th Cir.· 1969-05-02 ·cited 14×
  A federal court cannot enjoin a pending state criminal prosecution unless there is a clear showing of irreparable injury and no adequate remedy at law.
• Nat'l Dairy Prods. Corp. v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Dan R. Warren
  189 So. 2d 811· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-08-23 ·cited 14×·via Irreparable Damage
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a temporary restraining order and injunction issued against National Dairy Products Corporation in an unfair competition case, holding that the trial court erred in granting the order without notice and without adequate sworn factual
• Flota Maritima Browning de Cuba v. Snobl
  363 F.2d 733· 4th Cir.· 1966-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the order of sale was inequitably oppressive and that a sale should not be permitted before a trial on the merits.
• Barnwell Drilling Co., Inc. v. SUN OIL Co.
  300 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1962-03-20 ·cited 14×·via Irreparable Damage
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction, as the evidence did not clearly show imminent irreparable harm.
• Embassy Dairy, Inc. v. Camalier
  211 F.2d 41· D.C. Cir.· 1954-02-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the dismissal of the suit was error because the complaint stated a case for equitable relief within the District Court's jurisdiction.
• ALL Am. Airways, Inc. v. Vill. of Cedar-Hurst
  201 F.2d 273· 2d Cir.· 1953-01-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that there is a substantial question regarding the ordinance's validity against federal supremacy, and thus the injunction against its enforcement should be continued pending trial.
• City of Miami v. Sutton
  181 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1950-04-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting an injunction and denying the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the imminence of enforcement and irreparable injury required for equitable relief against a municipal ordinance.
• Medco Data, LLC v. Bailey
  152 So. 3d 105· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-11-26 ·cited 13×·via Presumption Of Irreparable Injury
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to apply the statutory presumption of irreparable injury when considering a motion for temporary injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant.
• BMW Fin. Servs. NA, LLC v. Elana B. Alger and Edmund W. Alger, III
  834 So. 2d 408· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-01-17 ·cited 13×
  BMW Financial Services sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying its motion to set aside a clerk's default. The Fifth District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that orders on motions to set aside clerk's defaults are not appealable as non-final orders an