-
723 F. Supp. 695·
S.D. Fla.·
1989-10-11
·cited 3×
The court held that Palm Beach County Ordinance 88-31, requiring the removal of doors from adult video booths, is a constitutional time, place, and manner regulation that does not violate the First Amendment, and that certain disclosure requirements within the ordinance were unco
-
875 F.2d 359·
2d Cir.·
1989-04-18
·cited 3×
The court held that Shell's notice of termination was timely under the PMPA because the 120-day clock began when Shell acquired actual knowledge of the grounds for termination, not merely upon hearing an allegation. The court also affirmed the denial of the franchisee's prelimina
-
549 F. Supp. 135·
S.D. Fla.·
1982-09-23
·cited 3×
The court dismissed the action without prejudice, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria for a preliminary injunction.
-
186 F. Supp. 2d 1203·
M.D. Fla.·
2001-08-24
·cited 2×
The court held that the statute does not prohibit preliminary injunctive relief for permanent disqualification from the Food Stamp Program, even for trafficking violations, and that the plaintiff met the prerequisites for such relief.
-
941 F. Supp. 1129·
N.D. Fla.·
1996-08-07
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff has standing and the case is ripe for review, as the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of Chapter 154 of the Act to his habeas petition creates immediate hardship and a dilemma regarding compliance.
-
804 F. Supp. 1512·
M.D. Fla.·
1992-10-19
·cited 2×
A preliminary injunction should be granted to prevent arbitration outside the forums specified in the parties' agreement, as the agreement supersedes general arbitration rules and customer preference does not override contractual terms.
-
823 F.2d 984·
6th Cir.·
1987-07-22
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong probability of success on the merits regarding their claims that audits and overpayment demands violated an Ohio statute o
-
808 F.2d 665·
8th Cir.·
1987-01-07
·cited 2×
The court held that Ellsworth Air Force Base is a federal enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, and federal procurement law does not require federal officials to follow state utility franchise laws when procuring electricity.
-
463 So. 2d 297·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1984-12-11
·cited 2×
The Florida Department of Banking and Finance appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to stop Standard Federal Savings & Loan Association and K-Mart from marketing deposit accounts through K-Mart retail locations. The court upheld the trial court's denial, holding
-
576 F. Supp. 1197·
S.D. Fla.·
1983-12-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for a de facto merger claim, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
436 So. 2d 970·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1983-07-26
·cited 2×
In this consolidated appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of preliminary and temporary injunctions sought by property owners to prevent the Surf Club from disposing of their proprietary interests, while affirming the stay of the action pend
-
365 F.2d 960·
D.C. Cir.·
1966-07-21
·cited 2×
A district court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board from conducting unfair labor practice proceedings or to review interlocutory rulings.
-
263 F.2d 788·
6th Cir.·
1959-02-17
·cited 2×
The court held that mandamus is not appropriate to compel a district court to hear a motion for a preliminary injunction before a motion to dismiss, as there was no abuse of discretion.
-
2020 WL 3847839·
N.D. Fla.·
2024-09-17
·cited 1×
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because it was not based on the claims in his complaint and sought relief beyond the scope of the complaint, and denied the motion to appoint counsel as no exceptional circumstances were shown.
-
158 F. Supp. 2d 1332·
S.D. Fla.·
2001-08-15
·cited 1×
The court held that habeas corpus is not the exclusive remedy for parolees challenging their conditions of release, and that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not always required. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction over the action.
-
751 F. Supp. 1323·
M.D. Fla.·
1994-03-31
·cited 1×
The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) barred the plaintiffs' claims based on alleged unwritten promises for end loan financing, and also defeated the plaintiffs' affirmative defenses to the FDIC's counterclaims.
-
Del. Ch.·
2026-02-25
NEC Fund VI, a lender to Hecate Holdings, seeks a preliminary injunction to recover $75 million in settlement proceeds from Hecate's settlement with Repsol over a put option dispute. Although the court found NEC likely to succeed on breach of contract claims, it denied the prelim
-
N.D. Fla.·
2026-01-19
The court held that the first-filed rule applies, requiring transfer of the second-filed suit to the first-filed forum for consolidation.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-12
The district court adopted and affirmed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation denying Jetchill Ltd's motion for preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Jiarui Minghui Trading Co., Ltd and Explonova Store. The court found no error in the magistrate judge's analysis and
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-12-05
The Shaping Academy sought preliminary injunctive relief and temporary restraining order against Aetna Behavioral Health LLC. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation without objection, denied the preliminary injunction motion, granted defendant's motion
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-29
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because he did not show his Minnesota sex offender designation was removed by a court order stating such removal.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-07
In a trademark dispute, the court denied defendants' motion for expedited discovery to depose eight witnesses who submitted declarations in support of plaintiff's pending motion for preliminary injunction. The court found that defendants would have adequate opportunity to cross-e
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-03
The court denied the petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, finding he was unlikely to succeed on the merits and that injunctive relief was not in the public interest.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-19
The court denied Defendants' motion for an extension of time to answer and denied their motion to stay Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, but granted a limited extension for Defendants to respond to the injunction motion.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-08-04
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and sought relief outside the scope of his amended complaint, thus denying his motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-06
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and his complaint are denied and dismissed, respectively, without prejudice.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-05-16
The court recommended transferring the case to the District of Arizona because it is a more convenient forum, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there and the Northern District of Florida lacks personal jurisdiction over the City of Phoenix.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-08
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the defendant agreed not to terminate the plaintiff's designation and the plaintiff is now compliant with fee obligations, rendering the request moot.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-27
The court denied the plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction because they failed to meet the required legal standard and procedural rules.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-10
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied because it failed to comply with local rules regarding factual support and legal argument.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-06-27
The court held that a preliminary injunction should not be granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, despite the application of Puerto Rico's Law 75.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-08-16
The court held that Odyssey demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its breach of contract claim and granted a limited preliminary injunction requiring Olin to supply a specified amount of bleach through October 2023.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-06
The court accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-06-13
A party's motion to file documents under seal is denied when the party fails to make a particularized showing of good cause beyond generalized claims of competitive harm or reliance on a confidentiality agreement.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-05-16
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-09-22
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the USCIS decision denying the plaintiffs' application for adjustment of status.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-11-01
The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the petition due to the probate exception and Eleventh Amendment, and that federal habeas relief is unavailable for guardianship challenges.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-05-14
The court held that the BOP correctly calculated the petitioner's sentences to run consecutively and that challenges to the validity of the sentence revocation must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not § 2241.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-04-27
The court held that the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and request for a preliminary injunction were without merit.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-08-10
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to order home confinement or make recommendations for it, and that the petitioner's procedural due process claim is moot due to his transfer.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-05-12
The court held that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden in seeking a preliminary injunction and did not use the proper forms for a civil rights action.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-30
The court held that the conditions at the detention centers violated detainees' Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights, and that injunctive relief was appropriate, but the specific remedy of release required further evaluation.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-20
The court held that an alien admitted under the Visa Waiver Program who overstays their authorized period and applies for adjustment of status after expiration waives their right to contest removal, precluding a preliminary injunction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-22
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to review a claim seeking to enjoin the execution of removal orders, even when related to pending provisional waiver applications.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2019-10-08
The court held that while 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) mandates detention, prolonged detention without a bond hearing can violate the Due Process Clause.
-
Del. Ch.·
2011-10-04
The Court of Chancery has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the in rem proceedings of an insurance rehabilitation, but not over all claims brought against the insurer during rehabilitation. Therefore, the court may, in its discretion, require a receiver to submit to arbitr
-
431 F. Supp. 2d 1228·
N.D. Fla.·
2006-05-12
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment.
-
38 F. Supp. 2d 994·
M.D. Fla.·
1999-02-16
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and therefore their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction must be denied.
-
983 F. Supp. 1445·
S.D. Fla.·
1997-09-17
The court found that federal statutes regulating alien eligibility for benefits are subject to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, due to Congress's plenary power over immigration.
-
954 F. Supp. 256·
S.D. Fla.·
1996-12-23
The court granted a preliminary injunction, remanding the case to the accrediting agency for further findings because the agency's decision to withdraw accreditation was not supported by substantial evidence.