Preliminary Injunction Factors

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

• Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. The Seminole Tribe of Fla.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-02-24
  The court denied plaintiffs' motions for a deposition to perpetuate testimony and for an injunction pending appeal, and granted sanctions in part against plaintiffs' counsel.
• Arcia v. Detzner
  371 F. Supp. 2d 796· S.D. Fla.· 2012-10-29
  The court held that the program to remove non-citizens from voter rolls is not subject to the 90-day provision of the NVRA, as that provision applies only to removals based on a change of residence.
• Worley v. Roberts
  749 F. Supp. 2d 1321· N.D. Fla.· 2010-10-26
  The court held that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that Florida law unconstitutionally prohibits spending contributions received and fully disclosed within five days before an election, but are unlikely to prevail on claims challenging disclosure of contributors,
• Moore v. Navy Pub. Works Ctr.
  139 F. Supp. 2d 1349· N.D. Fla.· 2001-04-10
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, primarily due to lack of standing and ripeness, and that the Navy's interpretation of the study 'initiation' date was permissible.
• Devereaux v. Colvin
  844 F. Supp. 1508· M.D. Fla.· 1994-02-16
  The court vacated the preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits and irreparable injury, and granted sanctions against the plaintiff and counsel for frivolous litigation.
• Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Norfolk S. Corp.
  927 F.2d 900· 6th Cir.· 1991-03-12
  The court held that the railroad defendants were not employers of the union's members and thus not subject to the preliminary injunction, and that the district court's finding of alter ego or joint employer status was clearly erroneous.
• Parker v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  879 F.2d 1362· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-13
  The court held that borrowers of FmHA guaranteed loans are not third-party beneficiaries of the lender's agreement with FmHA and thus do not have a right to appeal FmHA decisions regarding foreclosure or loan servicing.
• Martinez v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  675 F. Supp. 1574· M.D. Fla.· 1987-12-23
  The court held that the potential harm to others from returning Eliana Martinez to a classroom setting outweighed the plaintiff's interests, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.