Motion For Preliminary Injunction

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

• Thompson v. Planning Comm'n OF the City OF Jacksonville
  464 So. 2d 1231· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-02-11 ·cited 56×
  Thompson property owners sought to enjoin construction of an office building across the street after the Planning Commission granted a parking variance to the owners. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding that the variance was im
• United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc.
  711 F.2d 1164· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-28 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a presentence report may not be disclosed to third parties without a compelling demonstration that disclosure is required to meet the ends of justice, and that the district court erred in denying Peerless's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Thomas v. Evans
  880 F.2d 1235· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions because the record was insufficient to support findings of no reasonable legal or factual basis for the claims, and the improper purpose finding was dependent on those flawed conclusions.
• Louie N. Elias v. W.H. Connett
  908 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred injunctive relief for tax years 1974-1979 due to proper notice, and for 1981-1982 due to lack of sufficient grounds for equitable relief. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to state a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C.
• Stamicarbon, N.V. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  506 F.2d 532· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to compel in camera proceedings, as the contractual provisions did not clearly waive the right to a public trial and the potential for irreparable harm was speculative.
• DOE v. Brookline Sch. Comm.
  722 F.2d 910· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Section 1415(e)(3) of the Act establishes a strong preference for maintaining the status quo during review proceedings, but does not prevent courts from exercising their equitable powers to modify interim placements or funding upon a proper showing via a preli
• Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy
  957 F. Supp. 1262· S.D. Fla.· 1997-01-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate fraud or mistake to warrant relief from judgment, and their fear of statute enforcement was not actual or imminent, thus lacking standing.
• Hunt v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  872 F.2d 289· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the broadcast of a docudrama, as the plaintiff failed to meet the high burden required for a prior restraint on First Amendment rights.
• Lingelbach's Bavarian Rests., Inc. v. del Bello
  467 So. 2d 476· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-03-06 ·cited 24×
  A preliminary injunction may be granted upon a motion, even without a specific prayer for injunctive relief in the complaint, provided proper notice and an evidentiary hearing are afforded.
• Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger
  927 So. 2d 243· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-05-05 ·cited 23×
  VALIC appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction against a former employee who violated a nonsolicitation agreement by soliciting customers and taking confidential information to a competitor. The court reversed, holding that Florida's statutory presumption of irreparable har
• In re the Application of Michael J. Kingsley for the Return of Seized Prop.
  802 F.2d 571· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the government's seizure of the appellant's home and its contents was unlawful due to constitutional violations, and the district court improperly avoided ruling on these issues.
• Woods v. Benson Hotel Corp.
  177 F.2d 543· 8th Cir.· 1949-11-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 did not require all listed services to be furnished for decontrol, but rather that services customary in the community be made available.
• Salomon Cohen v. L'Engle
  24 Fla. 542· Fla.· 1888-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal in an equity case, holding that while it may possess inherent power to issue injunctions in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, such power should be exercised only when indispensable to protect a
• Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea
  129 So. 3d 1196· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-01-17 ·cited 19×
  Florida appellate court reversed a state court's temporary injunction that prohibited Gawker Media from publishing a report and video excerpts about professional wrestler Hulk Hogan's extramarital affair, holding that the injunction constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint
• Patchogue Nursing Ctr. v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  797 F.2d 1137· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a skilled nursing facility failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions for litigation to justify a preliminary injunction against the imposition of intermediate sanctions for noncompliance with Medicare participation requir
• Am. Bell Inc. v. Fed'n of Tel. Workers of Pa.
  736 F.2d 879· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 17×
  The court held that equity requires treating AT&T and its subsidiaries as a single enterprise in the context of a court-ordered divestiture, thus binding a successor subsidiary to a collective bargaining agreement.
• Orkin Extermination Co., Inc. v. Tfank
  766 So. 2d 318· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-03-01 ·cited 16×
  Orkin Extermination Company appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction against a former employee, William Tfank, who allegedly violated a noncompetition agreement. The court affirmed the denial, holding that a verified complaint alone is insuffic
• 281-300 Joint Venture v. Onion
  938 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action on prudential grounds and properly refused to enjoin the RTC's foreclosure sale, as statutory provisions and agency determinations barred such relief.
• Channel Home Ctrs. v. Grossman
  795 F.2d 291· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 14×
  A property owner's promise to negotiate in good faith with a prospective tenant, pursuant to a letter of intent, can be an enforceable contract if supported by consideration and sufficiently definite terms.
• 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.
• Flight Eng'rs' Int'l Ass'n, Eal Chapter, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.
  338 F.2d 280· D.C. Cir.· 1964-10-08 ·cited 14×
• Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle
  641 F.2d 104· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Chevron does not possess a property right in the test data submitted to the EPA, either under federal law or state law, that would prevent the agency from using such data internally for registration purposes.
• LAM MAN CHI v. Bouchard
  314 F.2d 664· 3d Cir.· 1963-02-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the designation of a deportation destination is not a final order of deportation reviewable by the district court under the 1961 Act, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Nat'l Distrib. Co., Inc. v. James B. Beam Distilling Co. & Nat'l Distillers Prods. Co.
  845 F.2d 307· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Brand Withdrawal Act did not govern the parties' relationship after their written distribution contract expired and they proceeded on an at-will basis, thus the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Winfield v. Major John C. Riebel
  438 F.2d 271· 6th Cir.· 1970-12-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a I-S deferment and that the local board did not abuse its discretion in denying his hardship classification claim.
• Allied Universal Corp. v. Given
  223 So. 3d 1040· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-03-15 ·cited 9×
  Allied Universal Corporation appealed the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enforce a non-compete agreement against former employee Jeffrey Given. The appellate court reversed, holding that Given failed to rebut the statutory presumption of irreparable
• Keene Corp. v. Judge J.E. Cass
  908 F.2d 293· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state court orders when the federal claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court's rulings, and that attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 cannot be awarded when a case is dismissed for lack
• BIG Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the Anchorage Sch. Dist.
  868 F.2d 1085· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Big Country's motion for a preliminary injunction because Big Country failed to demonstrate irreparable injury.
• N.M. Ex rel. Energy & Minerals Dep't v. U.S. Dep't OF the Interior
  820 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the Tribe's counterclaim without considering transfer, and that the dismissal of the complaint was proper as the Tribe was not prejudiced. The court vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and dis
• Conn. Res. Recovery Auth. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
  705 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a request for injunctive enforcement of a contract's status quo provision pending arbitration requires a demonstration of supporting equitable factors, such as the absence of an adequate remedy at law or a danger of irreparable harm.
• Emerson Elec. Co. v. The Black & Decker Mfg. Co.
  606 F.2d 234· 8th Cir.· 1979-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the transfer order was appealable, there was no personal jurisdiction over Limited, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case.
• The Wickes Corp. v. Indus. Fin. Corp.
  493 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the parties' express exclusion of the Florida Arbitration Code rendered it inapplicable, and under Florida common law, agreements to arbitrate future disputes are unenforceable, thus the district court should have stayed arbitration.
• Frieda Rader and Paul Rader v. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. OF Philadelphia
  242 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1957-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court held that the District Court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, not on res judicata grounds, because indispensable parties destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
• Transunion Risk & Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Reilly
  181 So. 3d 548· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-12-02 ·cited 7×
  TransUnion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement against former employee James Reilly. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court misapplied the statutory
• Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  723 F. Supp. 669· M.D. Fla.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court must consider four factors to grant a preliminary injunction: likelihood of prevailing on merits, irreparable injury, harm to opposing parties, and public interest.
• The Video Trip Corp. v. Lightning Video, Inc.
  866 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly denied because significant contract disputes, including alleged breaches by the plaintiff, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding copyright ownership, precluding a finding of probable success on the merits.
• In re Bristol Indus. Corp. v. Bristol Indus. Corp.
  690 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The bankruptcy court erred by treating a motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion without notice and by misapplying legal principles regarding bailments and sales of fungible goods.
• Arrow Transp. Co. v. S. Ry. Co.
  308 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1962-09-07 ·cited 6×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to extend the statutory seven-month period of rate suspension set by the Interstate Commerce Commission, as this power is exclusively vested in the ICC.
• T-Marc, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty.
  804 F. Supp. 1500· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while most of the challenged ordinance provisions were likely constitutional, certain employee disclosure requirements were overly intrusive and not substantially related to the stated government interests, warranting an injunction.
• Rey v. Guy Gannett Publ'g Co.
  766 F. Supp. 1142· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Tamiami P'rs, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
  788 F. Supp. 566· S.D. Fla.· 1992-03-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction, it would abstain from exercising it pending exhaustion of tribal remedies, and therefore stayed the federal action.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated January 30 v. Hon. Robert L. Carter
  784 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum is generally not permitted without first submitting to a contempt citation, and the Perlman exception does not apply here.
• Am. Fed'n OF Television & Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. Inner City Broad. Corp.
  748 F.2d 884· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that the parties did not intend to be bound by an oral agreement, as federal labor law favors collective bargaining agreements and technical rules of contract do not control. The court reversed the denial of arbitration and
• Organized Fisherman of Florida v. Andrus
  488 F. Supp. 1351· S.D. Fla.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits or a substantial threat of irreparable injury, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Staff Sergeant Agustin Correa v. Honorable William Graham Clayton, Jr.
  563 F.2d 396· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court vacated the denial of injunctive relief and remanded the case to the District Court to consider whether Correa's retirement benefits vested, avoiding constitutional due process and exhaustion issues.
• Kelly v. Union Stockyards & Transit Co. of Chicago
  190 F.2d 860· 7th Cir.· 1951-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court lacked primary jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims regarding removal from the Open Order List, and thus properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Mony Sec. Corp. v. Vasquez
  238 F. Supp. 2d 1304· M.D. Fla.· 2002-08-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted because the defendants were not customers of the plaintiff under NASD rules, thus no agreement to arbitrate existed. Compelling arbitration without an agreement constitutes irreparable harm.
• Tools v. Int'l Tool Supply
  984 F.2d 113· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that the dispute over the duration of the option agreement was for the court, not an arbitrator, to decide, and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying interim injunctive relief.
• Basham v. Freda
  805 F. Supp. 930· M.D. Fla.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, despite meeting other criteria.
• AIR Line Pilots Ass'n v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
  898 F.2d 1393· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the classification of a labor dispute as "minor" under the Railway Labor Act is a jurisdictional issue, not a decision on the merits, and the district court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the employer's actions.