Modification Of Injunction

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

• Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  732 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining the State from spending its own funds on preliminary design and engineering work for the Westway project, as this prohibition was not supported by the prior orders or the partnership rationale.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Inv. Corp. OF Am.
  369 F.2d 383· 7th Cir.· 1966-11-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's order denying a motion to construe a preliminary injunction, as it was neither a final decision nor an appealable interlocutory order.
• City & Cnty. of Denver v. Denver Tramway Corp.
  187 F.2d 410· 10th Cir.· 1951-02-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the city's motion to dissolve the injunction, as the court retained jurisdiction to enforce its prior decree and the circumstances did not warrant vacation.
• In re Hendrix v. Page
  986 F.2d 195· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-17 ·cited 9×
  A bankruptcy discharge injunction does not automatically bar a suit against the debtor's liability insurer, and a bankruptcy court can modify the injunction to allow such a suit, even if the state court previously dismissed the suit based on the injunction.
• Food Ctr., Inc. v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.
  356 F.2d 775· 1st Cir.· 1966-03-04 ·cited 9×
  The court held that neither party is automatically excluded from using its name in Massachusetts; the prior decree is subject to modification based on changed circumstances and equities. The case is remanded for further proceedings to define the scope of concurrent rights.
• Shields v. The Paving Stone Co., Inc.
  796 So. 2d 1267· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court held that the temporary injunction order was overly broad and did not conform to the trial court's oral ruling, requiring modification.
• Griffin v. Griffin
  665 So. 2d 352· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-12-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in awarding sole parental responsibility without finding detriment to the child and in failing to conform the final judgment to oral pronouncements regarding an injunction.
• The People OF the State OF Cal. ex rel. John VAN DE Kamp v. The Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  766 F.2d 1316· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal was timely under the 'unique circumstances' doctrine and that the district court did not err in denying TTSA's motions.
• Cora Cornelius v. Hogan
  663 F.2d 330· 1st Cir.· 1981-11-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the consent decree applied to social services transferred to DSS and that DSS could be bound to the decree, affirming the district court's rulings.
• Taylor v. Sterrett
  600 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court should discontinue its retained jurisdiction and dismiss the case because the original objectives of the lawsuit have been accomplished and state mechanisms now exist to address jail conditions.
• Avalon Legal Info. Servs., Inc. v. Keating
  110 So. 3d 75· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-03-08 ·cited 6×
  Avalon Legal Information Services and Judy Schneider appealed a temporary injunction enjoining them from violating a non-compete/non-solicitation covenant in favor of Gerard Keating. The court affirmed the injunction and bond amount but remanded for modification of the injunction
• City OF Sweetwater v. Solo Constr. Corp.
  823 So. 2d 798· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The City of Sweetwater violated Florida's competitive bidding statutes by awarding a public works contract to United Engineering Corporation instead of Solo Construction Corporation, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The trial court issued a writ of mandamus and injun
• United States v. Diapulse Corp. OF Am.
  748 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the FDA's inconsistent treatment of similar devices warranted modification of a prior injunction, allowing DCA to market a modified Diapulse machine (P/emf) similarly to how a competitor's machine (Magnatherm) was marketed, but affirmed the prohibition on mark
• Ass'n Against Discrimination IN Emp., Inc. v. City OF Bridgeport
  710 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had the power to modify its prior injunction to adapt remedies to changed circumstances, and that the modification was justified and consistent with prior rulings.
• Kodekey Elecs., Inc. v. The Mechanex Corp.
  500 F.2d 110· 10th Cir.· 1974-07-09 ·cited 6×
  The district court had the equitable power to modify its injunction to reflect the original intent and account for delays caused by the appellants' stays, and this modification did not violate Rule 60(b)(5).
• Feener Bus. Schs., Inc. v. Sch. OF Speedwriting, Inc.
  234 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1956-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the contempt order and the modified final decree, finding that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence in their appendix to challenge the lower court's findings.
• Bigelow v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
  183 F.2d 60· 7th Cir.· 1950-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court had the discretionary power to permit an extended first run of a motion picture, as the decree was susceptible to an interpretation allowing such flexibility based on the film's merits and the absence of intent to harm plaintiffs' rights.
• Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando v. MMB Props.
  171 So. 3d 125· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-05-22 ·cited 5×
  Planned Parenthood appeals a temporary injunction prohibiting it from performing abortions at a medical park property in violation of a restrictive covenant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the injunction prohibiting sonograms for lack of proper pleadin
• Stevens v. Bryan
  805 So. 2d 881· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-09-14 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court affirmed a permanent injunction against repeat violence but remanded the case to correct scrivener's errors in the injunction's wording and to clarify restrictions on the enjoined party.
• Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp.
  953 F.2d 510· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a conditional fine and a bond, but modified the business ban and destruction order to ensure they were proper civil contempt sanctions allowing for purging of contempt and limited to infringing goods.
• Five SKY, Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein
  131 So. 2d 39· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-06-05 ·cited 5×
  When a licensed business cannot be operated without permitting acts constituting an adjudicated public nuisance, a chancellor has authority to enjoin all operation of that business, not merely the unlawful acts, to suppress the nuisance.
• Cervieri v. Cervieri
  814 So. 2d 528· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The trial court reversed a domestic violence injunction and modified custody of a minor child based on a modification request the husband had no notice of and no opportunity to address, violating basic procedural due process. The appellate court reversed because the trial court f
• Amendments to the Fla. Fam. Law Rules of Procedure
  746 So. 2d 1073· Fla.· 1999-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court issued amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, modifying several rules based on comments received following an October 1998 opinion. The amendments address confidentiality of records, expert witness procedures, injunctions for domestic a
• In re Pearson
  990 F.2d 653· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that mandamus is not warranted because the petitioners failed to demonstrate palpable error or a special risk of irreparable harm from the district court's order appointing a special master.
• Inmates OF the Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Cyril H. Wecht
  874 F.2d 147· 3d Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's order imposing a contempt sanction and the order closing the old jail facility, finding both were appropriate remedies for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
• Transp., Inc. v. Mayflower Servs., Inc.
  769 F.2d 952· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the prior injunctive relief to prevent public confusion between the taxi companies' similar color schemes.
• Nelson v. Collins
  700 F.2d 145· 4th Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 4×
  A district court may modify a continuing injunction only upon finding changed circumstances of fact or law justifying adaptation.
• Am. Horse Prot. Ass'n, Inc. v. Watt
  694 F.2d 1310· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, as amended, allows the Bureau of Land Management to act on available information and supersedes the grounds for the injunction, thus permitting independent review of the District Court's interpretation.
• Theriault v. Smith
  519 F.2d 809· 1st Cir.· 1975-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had the power to vacate the injunction and that there was no probability that it abused its discretion in doing so.
• Meyers v. Railroad
  262 F.2d 676· 2d Cir.· 1959-01-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that modifying an injunction to exclude spur tracks was an improper construction of the Interstate Commerce Act's exemption, as it effectively constituted a total abandonment of service.
• SuVicMon Dev., Inc. v. Morrison
  991 F.3d 1213· 11th Cir.· 2021-03-25 ·cited 3×
  A fraudulent transfer action is a distinct claim from the underlying debt, and thus is not automatically non-dischargeable if the underlying debt is non-dischargeable. Furthermore, a debtor may not proceed nominally against a discharged debtor to recover from third parties unless
• Weissman v. Weissman
  102 So. 3d 718· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-12-12 ·cited 3×
  The former husband sought certiorari review of an ex parte emergency order that prohibited all contact with his three minor children for ninety days following a residential treatment program in California. The appellate court granted the petition in part, quashing the ninety-day
• Miley v. Dunn
  264 So. 3d 219· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-12-21 ·cited 2×
  Jennifer Miley appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to modify a 2007 injunction for protection against sexual violence entered on behalf of her son J.A.M. against Jessica Dunn. The injunction prohibited Dunn from coming within 250 feet of J.A.M.'s school, but the addres
• Wayne Paint Co. v. Gulfview Apts. OF Marco Island, Inc.
  739 So. 2d 1259· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-08-20 ·cited 2×
  Wayne Paint Company appealed the denial of its motion for attorney's fees after successfully defending against Gulfview Apartments' attempt to dissolve or modify an injunction protecting Wayne Paint's ownership interest in a condominium unit. The court reversed, holding that Wayn
• Royal Floral Distribs., Inc. v. Karukin
  625 So. 2d 1307· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-11-02 ·cited 2×
  Royal Floral Distributors sought to enforce a non-compete agreement against two former employees, Karukin and Lananna, who left to start a competing business. The trial court initially modified the injunction to exclude Lananna based on an erroneous finding that he had not signed
• United States v. Local 560 (I.B.T.)
  974 F.2d 315· 3d Cir.· 1992-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in issuing a permanent injunction against Michael Sciarra, finding sufficient evidence of his continued ties to organized crime and obstruction of the union's corruption-free environment.
• Schaeffer v. Schaeffer
  606 So. 2d 369· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-05-26 ·cited 2×
  The trial court properly exercised its discretion in dividing marital assets and denying alimony and attorney's fees in a dissolution action after a twenty-year marriage.
• Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Amgen, Inc.
  887 F.2d 460· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain Ortho's motion to modify the preliminary injunction and that the appeal was timely, but that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in denying the motion.
• Sys. Fed'n NO. 91, Ry. Emps. Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Wright
  272 F.2d 56· 6th Cir.· 1959-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the motion to modify the injunction, finding that the 1951 amendment to the Railway Labor Act did not nullify the prior consent decree.
• The Bowdil Co. v. Cent. Mine Equip. Co.
  216 F.2d 156· 8th Cir.· 1954-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in modifying an injunction based solely on the expiration of a patent and the plaintiff's discontinuation of a specific product line, as these changes did not eliminate the risk of unfair competition or trademark infringement.
• Evans Haile v. Venable
  53 Fla. 788· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to dissolve an injunction and dismiss a complainant's bill. The court found that the complainant was not injured by the proceedings and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an amended answer.
• Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Rigby
  96 So. 3d 1146· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-09-12 ·cited 1×
  Because Royal Caribbean failed to appeal an initial July 2009 order granting emergency maintenance and cure benefits and subsequently continued providing such benefits, the trial court properly entered a January 2010 order modifying the maintenance obligation to a $25 per diem, a
• Hale v. Miracle Enters. Corp. & Stanley S. Davidson
  517 So. 2d 102· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-29 ·cited 1×
  The Hales appealed a trial court's 1980 injunction enforcing a 15-foot easement held by Miracle Enterprises, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and was barred by res judicata from expanding the injunction's terms. The court held that because permanent injunctions remain in ef
• Anchorage Yacht Basin, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-20
  The court denied the motion to lift the monition and injunction, finding that the case is a multiple-claims-inadequate-fund situation where all claims must be adjudicated in the admiralty court.
• Anamarie Kelly Stoppa v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-03-27
  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order removing neglected or mistreated animals from an unfit owner under Florida's animal welfare statute. The case addresses the authority to remove animals from unsuitable owners and the permanence of injunctive relief i
• Takira T. Hinson v. Detrick L. Hussey
  317 So. 3d 219· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-02-24
  A party seeking to dissolve or modify an injunction must demonstrate a change in circumstances such that the scenario underlying the injunction no longer exists and continuation would serve no valid purpose.
• Freedom Med., Inc. v. Sewpersaud
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-11-03
  Defendants Maheshwar Sewpersaud and Usine Rotec, Inc. are held in civil contempt for violating the court's prior orders, and the preliminary injunction is modified to enjoin Sewpersaud globally from working for Rotec.
• Kaplan v. Kaplan
  307 F. Supp. 2d 908· M.D. Fla.· 2012-10-30
  The court held that a stay of the federal action was warranted under the Colorado River doctrine to allow parallel state probate proceedings to conclude, despite the probate exception not barring the federal claims themselves.
• Tacy v. Sedlar
  15 So. 3d 24· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-05-08
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the modification of the injunction to include the child as a protected party.
• Waldine Mikel v. Ewing Gourley
  951 F.2d 166· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-10
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was a clarification, not a modification, of the existing injunction.