Modification Of Injunction

114 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. NO. 27
  453 F.2d 645· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-03 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the government's motion to vacate the injunction was unauthorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as it did not fall under any of the specified grounds for relief from a final judgment.
• S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Johnson
  175 F.2d 176· 2d Cir.· 1949-06-02 ·cited 94×
  The court affirmed the summary dismissal of the plaintiff's application, narrowly interpreting the Lanham Trade Mark Act.
• Exxon Corp. v. Tex. Motor Exch. OF Houston, Inc.
  628 F.2d 500· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 93×
• Humble OIL & Ref. Co. v. Am. OIL Co.
  405 F.2d 803· 8th Cir.· 1969-01-09 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the "grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions" required to modify a prior injunction under the standard set by United States v. Swift & Co.
• Pershing Auto Rentals, Inc. v. Gaffney
  279 F.2d 546· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-15 ·cited 55×
  In a multiple-claim, inadequate-fund limitation proceeding, an admiralty court cannot modify its traditional injunction to permit some claimants to establish their claims initially in a state common law court.
• Amendments to the Fla. Fam. Law Rules of Procedure
  723 So. 2d 208· Fla.· 1998-10-29 ·cited 51×
  This Florida Supreme Court opinion addresses amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure and forms following a prior February 1998 opinion. The Court responds to petitions from the Family Law Rules Committee and Family Court Steering Committee requesting reconsiderati
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  663 F.2d 1354· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court should have granted the motion to modify the 1976 decree regarding minority promotion quotas due to changed conditions.
• de Filippis v. United States
  567 F.2d 341· 7th Cir.· 1977-12-05 ·cited 44×
  The dissent argues that the district court abused its discretion by not granting a Rule 60(b) motion to modify an injunction prospectively, given subsequent Supreme Court precedent.
• Seaboard Rendering Co. v. Conlon
  152 Fla. 723· Fla.· 1943-04-09 ·cited 44×
  Seaboard Rendering Company operated an animal reduction plant that emitted offensive odors, constituting a nuisance to neighboring property owners. The trial court permanently enjoined the plant's operation, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting the appellant's argume
• Duran v. Elrod
  760 F.2d 756· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge believes the appellants failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Nelson v. Collins
  659 F.2d 420· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that double-celling is not per se unconstitutional, but a factor in the totality of circumstances, and that the district court erred in prohibiting it at a new facility without sufficient evidence.
• King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Indus.
  418 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1969-07-31 ·cited 42×
  The dissent argues that the lower court's decision to deny modification of an injunction should be affirmed, as the moving party failed to show sufficient hardship or changed circumstances.
• Jackson Grain Co. v. LEE
  150 Fla. 232· Fla.· 1942-03-27 ·cited 38×
  Jackson Grain Company and other chain stores appealed the lower court's order striking parts of their answer and dismissing their counterclaim in a tax dispute with Florida's Comptroller. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Comptroller's previous inability to col
• Sizzler Family Steak Houses v. W. Sizzlin Steak House, Inc.
  793 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the contempt order and sanctions against Western, finding them compensatory and not an abuse of discretion, but dismissed Sizzler's cross-appeal regarding the amount of sanctions.
• Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.
  642 F.2d 578· D.C. Cir.· 1980-10-01 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while its prior interpretation of the Equal Pay Act's definition of 'wage' was overbroad, the specific facts of this case justified the original injunction, and the law of the case doctrine prevented modification.
• United States v. Ga. Power Co.
  634 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a seniority system's modification based on the Supreme Court's Teamsters decision was improper because the system was not bona fide and thus not protected by Teamsters. The district court erred in modifying its prior decree.
• United States v. Lawrence Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  799 F.2d 1031· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the 1974 order did not declare the school system unitary and that the school board had failed to comply with prior desegregation orders regarding faculty assignment and bus routes.
• Grand Union Equip. Co., Inc v. Lippner
  167 F.2d 958· 2d Cir.· 1948-05-07 ·cited 30×
  A bankruptcy court has the power to modify a final injunction prohibiting actions against a debtor, even after the confirmation decree, to allow a creditor to pursue an action against the debtor's insurer.
• Inmates OF the Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Cyril H. Wecht
  754 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the denial of a motion to modify an injunction setting jail population limits, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it vacated a $5,000 per prisoner sanction for releasing inmates, finding it lacked specificity and a nexus to the underlying violations.
• Buckhanon v. Percy
  708 F.2d 1209· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the June 1, 1982 order was appealable as it raised a new issue (Eleventh Amendment immunity) not previously litigated, but the appeal was limited to that issue. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits retroactive AFDC payments for the period before the January 14, 19
• Simonik v. Patterson
  752 So. 2d 692· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-02-16 ·cited 25×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to modify a permanent injunction, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Conway Brock, Jr. v. Newman D. Brock
  667 So. 2d 310· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-09-27 ·cited 24×
  In this will contest appeal, the court reversed a trial court's order unfreezing assets that had been frozen pending resolution of a challenge to the validity of a will and trust agreement. The court held that assets should remain frozen during the pendency of an appeal challengi
• Mercer v. Mitchell
  908 F.2d 763· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing fines for civil contempt without providing the County with adequate due process, specifically a show-cause order and a hearing.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters v. W. Pa. Motor Carriers Ass'n
  660 F.2d 76· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the injunction against employers with whom the union had no contract exceeded the court's jurisdiction under Section 301.
• Sierra Club v. Marsh
  907 F.2d 210· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 23×
  An order that alters the conditions upon which a preliminary injunction is predicated, but does not affect the operation or duration of the injunction itself, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Cook v. The Birmingham News
  618 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-13 ·cited 22×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to clarify a consent decree that did not have prospective effect, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5).
• Am. Ins. Co. v. Scheufler
  129 F.2d 143· 8th Cir.· 1942-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the decrees distributing impounded funds to policyholders, finding the insurance companies were not entitled to the funds and had participated in fraud.
• Offshore OF THE Palm Beaches, Inc. v. Lynch
  741 F.3d 1251· 11th Cir.· 2014-02-03 ·cited 21×
  A vessel owner, Offshore of the Palm Beaches, Inc., appealed a district court order allowing a single claimant, Lisa Lynch, to pursue her personal injury tort claim in state court despite Offshore's invocation of the Limitation of Liability Act in federal court. The Eleventh Circ
• Public Citizen v. Liggett Grp., Inc.
  858 F.2d 775· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a district court retains the power to modify a protective order still in effect after final judgment, but lacks the power to impose new filing requirements on discovery materials post-judgment. The court also found that while formal intervention under Rule 24
• Goodell v. Goodell
  421 So. 2d 736· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-11-10 ·cited 20×
  A former wife appealed her contempt conviction for violating a perpetual injunction in a divorce decree that prohibited harassment, hurting, or molesting her former husband. The court affirmed the contempt finding and held that perpetual injunctions in domestic relations cases ar
• Jetton-Dekle Lumber Co. v. Mather
  53 Fla. 969· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 19×
  A lumber company sought an injunction against labor unions to prevent them from enforcing union rules that penalized members who worked for employers using non-union labor. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's modification of the injunction, holding that peacefu
• Dowell v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF THE Okla. City Pub. Schs.
  890 F.2d 1483· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a school district's unitary status does not automatically dissolve a desegregation decree, and the district court must still demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to modify it.
• Dowell v. The Bd. OF Educ. of the Okla. City Pub. Schs.
  795 F.2d 1516· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to reopen the case because a past finding of unitariness does not bar renewed litigation of a mandatory injunction, especially when significant changes to a court-ordered plan are alleged.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Warren
  583 F.2d 115· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving a permanent injunction because the original violation was technical, there was little likelihood of recurrence, and the injunction caused undue hardship due to changed circumstances and regulations.
• Mayoe Porter Buster Ridley v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  427 F.2d 19· 10th Cir.· 1970-05-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to dissolve the injunction, in interpreting the original order to permit irrigation of an additional tract, or in determining the reasonable price for gas.
• Morse-Starrett Prods. Co. v. Steccone
  205 F.2d 244· 9th Cir.· 1953-06-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to modify the original judgment but erred in discharging the contempt order, reversing that part of the order.
• Brent C. Miller, Charles M. Rand, & Miller & Rand, P.A. v. Jacobs & Goodman, P.A.
  639 So. 2d 1088· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-07-15 ·cited 14×
  Miller and Rand appeal a trial court's denial of their third motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction governing fee allocation from clients who followed them when they left their law firm. The appellate court affirms, finding that appellants had earlier opportunities to raise
• Nat'l Org. FOR THE Reform OF Marijuana Laws v. Mullen
  828 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the order appointing a special master is not appealable as a modification of an injunction, but can be reviewed via writ of mandamus. The court also held that the federal entities participating in CAMP can be required to pay the master's fees.
• Elur J. Raymonvil v. Sade Ferrari Lewis
  46 So. 3d 139· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-10-22 ·cited 13×
  Trial court violated due process by summarily denying without hearing a motion to modify a domestic violence injunction where the movant alleged changed circumstances and a prior agreement limiting the injunction's duration.
• Int'l Jai-Alai Players Ass'n v. Dania Jai-Alai Div. of the Aragon Grp., Inc.
  563 So. 2d 1117· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-07-05 ·cited 12×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a permanent injunction against striking jai-alai players because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 by holding the final hearing while motions were still pending. The court held that the cause w
• The Money Store, Inc. v. Harriscorp Fin., Inc.
  885 F.2d 369· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 12×
  The standard for modifying injunctions should be viewed differently in property rights litigation compared to institutional reform litigation.
• GON v. First State Ins. Co.
  871 F.2d 863· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the insurance policy required the insurer to pay legal expenses as they were incurred, and that contemporaneous apportionment of these expenses was not feasible given the nature of the underlying claims.
• Movie Sys., Inc. v. MAD Minneapolis Audio Distribs.
  717 F.2d 427· 8th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's order, which clarified a preliminary injunction by making its sales prohibition absolute, constituted a modification and was therefore appealable. The modification was justified by the defendants' post-injunction sales activities.
• Limbach Co. v. Gevyn Constr. Corp.
  544 F.2d 1104· 1st Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was an interlocutory order related to pretrial procedures, not a final decision or an appealable injunction.
• Flavor Corp. OF Am. v. Kemin Indus., Inc.
  503 F.2d 729· 8th Cir.· 1974-10-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by clarifying its prior injunction to allow national advertising with a disclaimer, as this was a clarification, not a modification, and balanced the parties' interests.
• Atlas Scraper & Eng'g Co. v. Pursche
  357 F.2d 296· 9th Cir.· 1966-02-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court acted within its mandate and had the inherent power to modify an injunction, and that a defense raised after remittitur was improper.
• Spengler v. Hughes Tool Co.
  169 F.2d 166· 10th Cir.· 1948-08-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely because the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the order denying the motion to modify the injunction was entered.
• Coca-Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Labs., Inc.
  155 F.2d 59· 4th Cir.· 1946-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the original interpretation of the injunction, protecting the plaintiff's product color, should be enforced, and the defendants' attempt to narrow its scope was improper.
• Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Holiday INN
  645 F.2d 239· 4th Cir.· 1981-04-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendant's subsequent limited trademark registration did not warrant modification of a prior injunction prohibiting the use of the ® symbol, as the defendant's past conduct demonstrated intent to infringe and cause confusion.
• Samanka v. Brookhouser
  899 So. 2d 1190· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-04-15 ·cited 10×
  Sandra Samanka appealed a modified domestic violence injunction, arguing the trial court violated her due process rights by extending and modifying the injunction without holding a hearing. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, holding that a nonmoving