Permanent Injunction

757 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 75 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• PetMed Express, Inc. v. MedPets.Com, Inc.
  336 F. Supp. 2d 1213· S.D. Fla.· 2004-06-28 ·cited 196×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for default judgment, finding defendants liable for trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and cyberpiracy, and awarded statutory damages and attorney's fees.
• United States v. The City OF Miami
  664 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 162×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's approval of a consent decree designed to remedy past discrimination in the Miami Police Department. The court held that the decree did not abridge the collective bargaining rights of the police unions, as the unions failed to demo
• N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State
  866 So. 2d 612· Fla.· 2003-07-10 ·cited 148×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida's Parental Notice of Abortion Act unconstitutionally infringes on a minor's right of privacy under the Florida Constitution. The Court applied its controlling precedent from In re T.W. and found that the Act imposes a significant restri
• Burger King Corp. v. Agad
  911 F. Supp. 1499· S.D. Fla.· 1995-09-29 ·cited 127×
  The court held that the defendants' continued operation of a Burger King restaurant after their franchise and lease agreements expired constituted trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, and that wrongful termination or denial of a successor agreement is not a defense to suc
• Emergency Assocs. OF Tampa, P.A. v. Joseph A. Sassano, D.O.
  664 So. 2d 1000· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-10-11 ·cited 110×
  Emergency Associates and Dr. Arnold appealed a trial court's decision enforcing a noncompetition agreement against them by interpreting "five (5) square miles" as "five-mile radius." The appellate court reversed, holding that "square mile" is an unambiguous unit of measurement an
• Galella v. Onassis
  487 F.2d 986· 2d Cir.· 1973-09-13 ·cited 102×
  The court denied the petition for rehearing en banc, finding the panel's decision did not present a substantial question of unusual importance warranting such review.
• Arista Records, Inc. v. Beker Enters., Inc.
  298 F. Supp. 2d 1310· S.D. Fla.· 2003-12-19 ·cited 99×
  The court granted final default judgment and a permanent injunction against defendants for copyright infringement, awarding statutory damages and attorney's fees.
• Miller v. Carson
  563 F.2d 741· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 97×
• The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. The City OF Hollywood
  329 So. 2d 10· Fla.· 1976-01-21 ·cited 97×·via Action For Permanent Injunction
  Hollywood Beach Hotel Company obtained a zoning change and building permit to develop a 105-acre tract, but the City of Hollywood engaged in prolonged delays and ultimately attempted to rescind the zoning and impose a restrictive density ordinance. The Florida Supreme Court held
• Gresham Park Cmty. Org. v. Howell
  652 F.2d 1227· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 91×
  The court held that abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate, requiring dismissal of the federal suit seeking to enjoin state court proceedings, even though the state court's injunction was immediately enforceable and created state action.
• Donovan v. Loran W. Robbins
  752 F.2d 1170· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred in not approving the settlement agreement because ERISA permits equitable contribution among co-trustees, and the comparative fault rule discussed by the majority is inapplicable and unnecessary dicta.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. U.S. OIL & GAS Corp.
  748 F.2d 1431· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 89×
  The district court has the inherent equitable power to grant ancillary relief, including freezing assets and appointing a receiver, as an incident to its statutory authority to issue a permanent injunction under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.
• Operation Rescue v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc.
  626 So. 2d 664· Fla.· 1993-10-28 ·cited 84×
  Operation Rescue challenged an amended permanent injunction restricting its anti-abortion demonstrations outside a medical clinic and near employees' homes. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the injunction, holding that content-neutral, narrowly tailored restrictions on the time,
• Lewis v. Baune
  534 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1976-07-06 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction because there was no showing of irreparable injury, and therefore, the subsequent civil contempt judgment was also invalid.
• Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke
  475 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-15 ·cited 81×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the stay order as part of an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, and that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was inapplicable to a suit brought under 49 U.S.C.A. § 1017(b)(2).
• The W. E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc.
  435 F.2d 656· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 77×
  The court held that Revlon infringed Bassett's trademark, was in contempt, and must provide a full accounting of profits, but reversed the denial of Bassett's claim for expenses in addition to the accounting.
• A Quaker Action Grp. v. Hickel
  421 F.2d 1111· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-24 ·cited 77×
  The court held that while the government has a paramount interest in presidential safety, it must provide factual support for claims that demonstrations threaten it, rather than relying on mere assertion. The preliminary injunction was modified to require advance notice of demons
• Campbell v. Anderson McGRUDER
  580 F.2d 521· D.C. Cir.· 1978-03-30 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the District Court's order was clearly erroneous because it was based on speculation and conjecture regarding the new jail's conditions and capacity, rather than substantial evidence.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Coffey
  493 F.2d 1304· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-28 ·cited 75×
  The court held that corporate officials cannot be personally enjoined for corporate securities law violations unless they personally committed or knowingly participated in the violation. The court reversed the injunction against the appellants, finding no evidence of a fraudulent
• Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc.
  772 F.2d 1423· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of trademark infringement, contempt, and the issuance of a permanent injunction, holding that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that Euroquilt's arguments regarding representation and injunction v
• Penn v. SAN Juan Hosp., Inc.
  528 F.2d 1181· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the permanent injunction claim without proper notice and consolidation, and in denying class action status based on unpersuasive reasoning.
• Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel
  367 F.2d 197· 2d Cir.· 1966-10-13 ·cited 62×
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Piper Aircraft Corp. v. Wag-Aero, Inc.
  741 F.2d 925· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 61×
  The court stated that the standard of review for a determination of laches, particularly in intellectual property cases, should be 'clearly erroneous,' not 'abuse of discretion.'
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha
  623 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 59×
  Benefits under an ERISA-covered pension plan are not subject to garnishment by a creditor of a plan beneficiary, and federal courts may enjoin such garnishments under ERISA's express authorization exception to the anti-injunction act.
• State v. Sullivan
  157 Fla. 496· Fla.· 1946-05-28 ·cited 59×
  The Florida Supreme Court vacated a contempt conviction against attorney Vincent C. Giblin for filing an affidavit containing accusations against a circuit judge. The Court held that while certain statements in the affidavit may have been contemptuous, due process required that G
• Bullock v. United States
  265 F.2d 683· 6th Cir.· 1959-02-27 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the appellants were properly convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court order mandating school desegregation, and that various procedural and evidentiary challenges raised on appeal lacked merit.
• Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall
  685 F.2d 1306· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the Bankruptcy Judge's order was a final order, not interlocutory, and thus appealable.
• NEW York State Nat'l Org. FOR Women v. Terry
  886 F.2d 1339· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-20 ·cited 55×
  The First Amendment does not grant a right to physically block access to abortion clinics or to tortiously harass individuals seeking services there, and injunctions limiting such actions are constitutional.
• Miami Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Callander
  256 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court's order granting broad injunctive relief and mandating a special shareholder meeting was improper, exceeding its equity powers and the scope of a preliminary injunction.
• Century 21 Real Est. Corp. v. Sandlin
  846 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 51×
  The court held that a former franchisee's use of a similar name and signage created a likelihood of confusion, justifying summary judgment and a permanent injunction.
• Evans v. Buchanan
  555 F.2d 373· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 49×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the majority's order is unclear and that the case should be remanded to resolve critical issues regarding interdistrict violations and their effects.
• Posada v. Lamb Cnty.
  716 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court's factual finding that the plaintiffs did not prove their claim was not clearly erroneous, and thus should be deferred to.
• Lynch v. City OF Milwaukee
  747 F.2d 423· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees, including a negative multiplier, despite the nominal damages awarded.
• 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.
• United States v. Sch. Dist. 151 OF Cook Cnty.
  404 F.2d 1125· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-17 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge believes the case was improperly decided on a motion for a preliminary injunction and that the defendants were denied a fair trial due to the rushed proceedings and insufficient time to prepare a defense.
• Taylor v. Teletype Corp.
  648 F.2d 1129· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-01 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the finding of classwide racial discrimination in demotions for 1974-1976, affirmed certain individual discrimination findings and relief, vacated the permanent injunction, and remanded for further proceedings on other individual claims.
• State v. Johnson
  676 So. 2d 408· Fla.· 1996-04-04 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that prosecution for aggravated stalking does not violate double jeopardy protections even when the defendant has already been prosecuted for contempt of court based on the same conduct. The court applied the Blockburger test, which focuses on wheth
• Playtime Theaters, Inc. v. The City OF Renton
  748 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 43×·via Action For Permanent Injunction
  The City of Renton failed to demonstrate a substantial governmental interest unrelated to suppressing speech, and the ordinance was more restrictive than necessary. The denial of fees for a second removal was not clearly erroneous.
• Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. OF Corr.
  776 F.2d 851· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 42×·via Permanent Injunctive Relief
  The court held that a constitutionally adequate law library, or adequate assistance from trained legal personnel, satisfies the inmates' right of meaningful access to the courts, and that the prison's current library and support system meet these minimum standards.
• The Money Store v. Harriscorp Fin., Inc.
  689 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff did not commit fraud in its trademark application and that the mark is suggestive, reversing the lower court's cancellation and injunction. However, the court affirmed the lower court's finding that the assignment of the mark from United Bank to
• Mallory v. Harkness
  923 F. Supp. 1546· S.D. Fla.· 1996-03-12 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Attorney General and the Florida Bar are liable for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, with specific apportionment, and that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable costs.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. AMY Travel Serv., Inc.
  875 F.2d 564· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the statutory grant of authority to issue permanent injunctions under Section 13(b) of the FTCA includes the power to order ancillary equitable relief, such as rescission and restitution. It also affirmed the magistrate's evidentiary rulings and the imposition
• Miss Universe, Inc. v. Patricelli
  408 F.2d 506· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-20 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while the appellee's service marks are valid and entitled to protection, the injunction against the appellant's use of 'Miss World-U.S.A.' was overly broad and not supported by sufficient findings of actual confusion.
• Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc.
  213 F.2d 122· 3d Cir.· 1954-05-12 ·cited 40×
  The denial of a motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction is not an appealable order, but a permanent injunction is an appealable interlocutory order. The permanent injunction was vacated due to lack of findings of fact.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Premex, Inc.
  655 F.2d 779· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a civil contempt citation was proper even without proof of intentional misconduct, and that the award of attorney's fees and expenses to the CFTC was appropriate.
• Allison v. Froehlke
  470 F.2d 1123· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-27 ·cited 39×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction was proper because the plaintiffs did not show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits regarding the Corps of Engineers' modifications to a congressionally authorized flood control project.
• Planned Parenthood OF Central AND Northern Arizona v. The State OF Ariz.
  718 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while Arizona can refuse to fund abortion-related activities, the footnote was potentially unconstitutionally broad by withholding all state funds. The court also found the term 'counseling for abortion procedures' not unconstitutionally vague.
• Semancik v. United Mine Workers OF Am. Dist. #5
  466 F.2d 144· 3d Cir.· 1972-08-16 ·cited 38×
  A union's disciplinary provision that is vague and infringes upon members' free speech rights under the LMRDA can be permanently enjoined by a district court.
• Hunter v. Atchison
  188 F.2d 294· 7th Cir.· 1951-03-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to consider evidence regarding whether the plaintiffs had actual notice of the Adjustment Board proceedings or had authorized representation, as such notice or authorization would estop them from claiming the award was void
• Winnebago Tribe OF Nebraska v. Col. James W. RAY
  621 F.2d 269· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 37×·via Request For Permanent Injunction
  The court held that the Army Corps of Engineers' issuance of a permit to cross the Missouri River was not a "major federal action" requiring an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA, and the Tribe failed to raise substantial environmental issues.