Mandatory Preliminary Injunction

12 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Exhibitors Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp.
  441 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-30 ·cited 37×
• Mci Commc'ns Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & the Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.
  496 F.2d 214· 3d Cir.· 1974-04-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a mandatory preliminary injunction without first deferring to the FCC under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, given the uncertainty of FCC orders and ongoing FCC proceedings.
• 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
• Wetzel v. Edwards
  635 F.2d 283· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly balancing the factors for granting a preliminary injunction, failing to adequately consider the harm to the defendants and the public interest.
• McLaughlin v. Pernsley
  876 F.2d 308· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Catholic Social Services lacked standing to appeal the preliminary injunction, and that the Williamses, as intervenors, had standing to appeal only regarding the remedy. The court affirmed the district court's grant of a mandatory preliminary injunction orderi
• Petuskey v. Rampton
  431 F.2d 378· 10th Cir.· 1970-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a single judge cannot nullify the action of a three-judge court, and that the district court lost jurisdiction upon appeal, rendering subsequent actions void. The court affirmed the three-judge court's order and reversed the single judge's injunctions.
• 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
• Harris v. Wilters
  596 F.2d 678· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction to fund his state coram nobis proceeding.
• Parents' Comm. OF Pub. Sch. 19 v. The Cmty. Sch. Bd. OF Cmty. Sch. Dist. NO. 14 OF the City OF NEW York
  524 F.2d 1138· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the order under appeal, while not a traditional injunction, was appealable under the collateral order doctrine as it required significant expenditure and addressed a novel issue.
• Saba Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. Blackrock Credit Allocation Income Tr.
  Del. Ch.· 2019-06-27
  The Court granted a mandatory preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from applying Section 7(e)(ii) of the bylaws to invalidate the plaintiff's nominations based on the late return of questionnaires. The Court ordered that votes for the plaintiff's nominees shall be cou
• Am Gen. Holdings LLC
  Del. Ch.· 2012-12-21
  The Court granted Holdco's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction, finding that ILR breached the Ilshar Agreement by failing to distribute the Holdco Preferred Return as required. The Court determined that Holdco had a reasonable probability of success on its breach of con
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Bertucci's Rest. Corp.
  Del. Ch.· 2003-11-21
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff had not made a good faith effort to complete the permitting process. Specifically, the owner had not requested the necessary final inspections or paid outstanding sewer charges, which