Preliminary Injunction Factors

58 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C.
  2001 WL 1850837· M.D. Fla.· 2001-03-15 ·cited 353×
  The court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, agreeing with the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of most of their claims.
• Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc.
  784 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 86×
  The court's opinion is consistent with traditional standards for granting or denying a preliminary injunction.
• Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
  714 F.2d 1240· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 65×
  The court held that computer operating system programs, whether in object code or embedded in ROM, are copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act.
• Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland
  637 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-20 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in its review standard and in finding that federal defendants complied with NEPA regarding alternatives and project segmentation.
• Buchanan v. United States Postal Serv.
  508 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Postal Service's consolidation of district offices was not a "change in the nature of postal services" requiring submission to the Postal Rate Commission, but affirmed the preliminary injunction for the Retail Analysis Program (RAP) due to factual disputes
• Sofarelli v. Pinellas Cnty.
  931 F.2d 718· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 33×
  The court held that Sofarelli stated a claim under the Fair Housing Act against the neighbors, but not against the county or sheriff. The court also held that § 1983 claims against all parties failed.
• Sauer-Getriebe KG v. White Hydraulics, Inc.
  715 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 33×
  An arbitration clause covering "any and all disputes" governs challenges to the contract's validity, and filing suit for injunctive relief does not waive the right to arbitrate.
• Tech. Publ'g Co. v. Lebhar-Friedman, Inc.
  729 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because 'Software News' is likely a generic term, unprotectable as a trademark, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Fern v. Thorp Pub. Sch.
  532 F.2d 1120· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing factors for a preliminary injunction, and therefore the injunction should not be vacated.
• Knights OF the KU Klux Klan v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd.
  578 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a state agency cannot condition the off-time use of public school facilities on the political or ideological views of the applicant, as this violates the First Amendment. A temporary injunction was granted.
• Int'l Res., Inc. v. NEW York Life Ins. Co.
  950 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the fourth state law claim regarding conversion rights under Kentucky law is pre-empted by ERISA, and plaintiffs must pursue their claims under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions.
• O'Brien v. Town OF Caledonia
  748 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1984-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm due to the chilling effect on his First Amendment rights.
• Martin v. Orrin L. Helstad
  699 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 18×
  A potential law school student who procures acceptance through fraudulent misrepresentations does not possess a constitutionally protected property interest in attending the university.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. ex rel. J. Shane Creamer v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  469 F.2d 1387· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Commonwealth failed to make a strong showing of prevailing on the merits and suffering irreparable injury, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc.
  968 F.2d 371· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 14×
  A franchisor's right to terminate a franchise agreement for non-payment of royalties is independent of any claims the franchisee may have against the franchisor for breach of contract, and post-termination unauthorized use of the trademark constitutes infringement.
• The State OF Alaska v. Native Vill. OF Venetie
  856 F.2d 1384· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the balance of hardships and public interest favored the appellees, and serious questions were raised regarding the appellants' tribal status and jurisdiction to tax.
• Ray v. Sch. Dist. of DeSoto Cnty.
  666 F. Supp. 1524· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the exclusion of HIV-positive hemophiliac children from regular classrooms.
• Pretty Punch Shoppettes, Inc. v. Marge Hauk
  844 F.2d 782· Fed. Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 12×
  The appellate court held that the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction must be vacated and remanded because it failed to make sufficient findings of fact as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
• Planned Parenthood Ass'n OF Cincinnati, Inc. v. The City OF Cincinnati & Stanley Broadnax, M.D.
  822 F.2d 1390· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the ordinance's specific disposal requirements for fetal remains unconstitutionally burden the right to abortion.
• Leschniok v. Heckler
  713 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Secretary violated 42 U.S.C. § 425(b) by failing to consider it when terminating disability benefits for individuals in vocational rehabilitation programs. The court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Nordin v. Nutri/System, Inc.
  897 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the district court's order enjoining arbitration and denying the motion to compel arbitration, but not the order denying the venue transfer. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no agreement to arbitrate the
• Sundor Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc.
  653 F. Supp. 86· M.D. Fla.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 10×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of confusion between the parties' products and trade dress, which constitutes irreparable injury.
• Transohio Sav. Bank v. Dir., Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  967 F.2d 598· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that FIRREA applies to thrifts with prior forbearance agreements, and that such agreements do not prevent Congress from changing capital rules. Sovereign immunity is waived for statutory and due process claims against the OTS under the APA, but not for contract cla
• The Libertarian Party OF Ind. v. Packard
  741 F.2d 981· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Indiana's Personalized License Plate Act does not violate the First Amendment by conditioning a government benefit on the surrender of constitutional rights, as public financing of political parties serves a governmental interest in facilitating public discour
• Carillon Importers Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Grp., Inc.
  913 F. Supp. 1559· S.D. Fla.· 1996-01-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant's vodka packaging infringed upon the plaintiff's trade dress, and granted a preliminary injunction.
• Gerber Garment Tech., Inc. v. Lectra Sys., Inc.
  916 F.2d 683· Fed. Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that claims 15 and 16 of the '154 patent were not consonant with the claims elected in the parent application, thus rendering them invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Auto Body Panels OF Ohio, Inc.
  908 F.2d 951· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chrysler's motion for a preliminary injunction because Chrysler failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Newsom v. Norris
  888 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while inmates have no property interest in continued employment as inmate advisors, they do have a liberty interest protected by the First Amendment against retaliation for exercising their speech rights.
• Forry, Inc. v. Neundorfer, Inc.
  837 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm.
• NEW England Braiding Co., Inc. v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
  970 F.2d 878· Fed. Cir.· 1992-07-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying NEBCO's motion for a preliminary injunction, as NEBCO failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the patent's inventorship.
• Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int'l Ltd. & Reebok Int'l Ltd.
  998 F.2d 985· Fed. Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider post-sale confusion for trademark and trade dress claims and by misapplying the Gorham test for design patent infringement.
• Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Grip-Pak, Inc.
  906 F.2d 679· Fed. Cir.· 1990-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the patent holder failed to sufficiently demonstrate the necessary equitable factors.
• The Hillhaven Corp. v. Wis. Dep't OF Health & Soc. Servs.
  733 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, given the appellate court's reversal of the prior ruling on the same issue.
• Am. Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Mgmt., LLC
  103 F.4th 765· 11th Cir.· 2024-06-03 ·cited 3×
  American Alliance for Equal Rights challenged the Fearless Fund's grant contest, which limited applicant eligibility to Black women, arguing the racial exclusion violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981's prohibition on race discrimination in contracting. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Alli
• 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.
• Aswegan v. Henry
  981 F.2d 313· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 2×
  Prisoners do not have a right to a specific means of access to the courts, and the ISP's policy does not deny them adequate access.
• S & M Constructors, Inc. v. The Foley Co.
  959 F.2d 97· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Contract Disputes Act does not require a stay of arbitration proceedings, and the subcontractor failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Cellular Sales, Inc. v. MacKay
  942 F.2d 483· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the name 'Cellular Sales' is generic and not entitled to trade name protection, and the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm.
• Lakedreams v. Taylor
  932 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that Lakedreams demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim.
• Rosemount, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n
  910 F.2d 819· Fed. Cir.· 1990-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the ITC's denial of temporary relief, finding that the presumption of irreparable harm was rebutted by evidence and that the balance of harms and public interest factors supported denial.
• Tampa Sports Auth. & Henry G. Saavedra v. Johnston
  914 So. 2d 1076· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-11-30 ·cited 1×
  The Tampa Sports Authority appealed a preliminary injunction barring suspicionless patdown searches of stadium attendees at Tampa Bay Buccaneers games. The appellate court vacated the automatic stay of the injunction, allowing it to remain in effect during the appeal, based on a
• Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A. v. Clarke
  712 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Comptroller's interpretation of the McFadden Act, defining 'state bank' by function rather than state label, is a reasonable exercise of authority consistent with the doctrine of competitive equality.
• Erazo v. Hardin
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-12
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the movant failed to satisfy the procedural requirements, specifically regarding notice to the opposing party.
• Thompson v. Centurion of Fla. LLC
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-11-15
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because he failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim.
• Thompson v. Centurion of Fla. LLC
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-10-23
  The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because he failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a substantial threat of irreparable injury.
• Fla. Growers Ass'n, Inc. v. Su
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-29
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Count IV (RFA claim) with leave to replead.
• Fontaine v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-07-20
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order because the relief sought was outside the scope of the underlying action and sought against non-parties.
• Fontaine v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-01-21
  A motion for a traditional injunction must be predicated upon a cause of action, and the plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Dream Defenders v. LEE
  N.D. Fla.· 2020-10-09
  The court found that the Secretary of State's failure to maintain a functional voter registration website and her subsequent limited deadline extension, with insufficient notice, likely violated constitutional rights. The court also determined that the organizational plaintiffs h
• The Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Parsont
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-06-09
  The court held that the plaintiff (FAU) is substantially likely to succeed on its claim that the defendant (Parsont) violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by intentionally accessing FAU's protected computer system without authorization or exceeding authorized access.