Preliminary Injunction Requirements

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

• The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla. v. Callaway
  489 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-15 ·cited 350×
• United States v. Jefferson Cnty.
  720 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 192×
  The court held that the Birmingham Firefighters Association members' motion to intervene was untimely and dismissed their appeal, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to white male firefighters due to a failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  423 So. 2d 927· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-16 ·cited 83×
  The Ladners appealed a final judgment requiring them to restore their condominium terrace railing to comply with the Declaration of Condominium. The court held that the Association's enforcement action was not selective enforcement and that prior appellate dicta on the merits fro
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  595 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-21 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing preliminary injunctions to preserve the status quo pending appeal of a state court judgment, as federal jurisdiction was proper and abstention doctrines did not apply.
• T.J. Cunningham v. Adams
  808 F.2d 815· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because the appellant failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Farrow
  580 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 66×
  The court noted that the obscurity of federal regulations created unnecessary burdens on parties and the judicial system.
• Eligio Castro and Rafael Diaz Diaz v. United States
  775 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the appellants' claims, enjoining them from further litigation, and assessing costs, as they failed to exhaust administrative remedies, state valid claims, or demonstrate grounds for injunctive relief.
• 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
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Cosmair, Inc.
  821 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that stopping severance pay after an employee filed an ADEA charge constituted unlawful retaliation, and that a waiver of the right to file such a charge is void as against public policy.
• Barry J. Koerpel, M.D. v. Heckler
  797 F.2d 858· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Dr. Koerpel's claims of liberty deprivation were sufficiently colorable to establish federal court jurisdiction, but ultimately found that he had not raised difficult or doubtful questions on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• Guar. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ryan
  928 F.2d 994· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-25 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the contract did not grant an unmistakable right to treat supervisory goodwill as regulatory capital for a fixed period, and FIRREA's statutory requirements for phasing out goodwill apply. Therefore, the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• W.E. Callaway, Jr. v. Block
  763 F.2d 1283· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the 1984 peanut quota regulations did not conflict with the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 and did not violate due process, affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• 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.
• Nat'l Land & Inv. Co. v. Arlen Specter
  428 F.2d 91· 3d Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary prerequisites.
• Sanders v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  473 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the requested injunctions were overly broad and failed to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d), and the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a high
• Rivera v. Hon. Jaime Torres Gaztambide
  812 F.2d 258· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in finding the RHA Regional Director position substantially related to partisan political concerns, lacking record support for both prongs of the applicable test.
• Salim Aoude v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  862 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the procedural challenges raised by the appellant were either meritless, harmless, or untimely.
• Mass. Ass'n OF Older Americans v. Sharp
  700 F.2d 749· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, and the termination of Medicaid benefits without redetermination violated federal regulations.
• The MacHlett Labs., Inc. v. Techny Indus., Inc.
  665 F.2d 795· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law, and the balance of hardships and public interest did not favor the injunction.
• Spiegel v. City OF Houston
  636 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was overly broad and reversed its issuance, remanding for revision.
• Michael v. Costello
  525 F.2d 1239· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-15 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge held that the district court's order was impossible for the defendant to comply with without violating Florida law, and that a three-judge court should have been convened.
• 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.
• Ballard v. Eckman & Vetsburg
  20 Fla. 661· Fla.· 1884-01-01 ·cited 24×
  In this equity case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree finding fraudulent conveyance where creditors alleged that L. M. Ballard sold his mercantile stock to his brother H. D. Ballard to defraud creditors. The court held that the evidence did not support the fraud allega
• ON/TV OF Chicago v. Julien
  763 F.2d 839· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant's sale of decoder kits capable of unscrambling subscription television signals likely violated Section 605 of the Communications Act, and a preliminary injunction was appropriate.
• Chicago Title Ins. Agency OF LEE Cnty., Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
  560 So. 2d 296· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-04-18 ·cited 22×
  Chicago Title Insurance Agency of Lee County appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss and a preliminary mandatory injunction requiring it to cease using the word "Chicago" in its business name. The court reversed the injunction, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable in
• Curtis v. Thompson
  840 F.2d 1291· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred by denying a preliminary injunction without addressing all five required factors, particularly given the constitutional nature of the claims.
• Mass. Ass'n FOR Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. King
  668 F.2d 602· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the consent decrees did not override the charge-for-care statute, finding it unlikely that plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their claim that the statute was unlawful.
• Pratte v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  683 F.2d 1038· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff's reliance on the government's job offer was unjustified, thus failing to establish a claim for equitable estoppel.
• Frejlach v. Butler
  573 F.2d 1026· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Islandia Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Vermut
  438 So. 2d 89· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-09-07 ·cited 18×
  Florida appellate court reversed a preliminary injunction preventing a condominium association from repainting a unit's exterior, holding that the trial court failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or inadequate remedy at law required for such extraordinary relief.
• Esposito v. Horning
  416 So. 2d 896· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-07-14 ·cited 18×
  Esposito appealed from orders granting and maintaining a preliminary injunction requiring a boat to be held at a boatyard in a dispute with Horning over ownership and a claimed repair contract. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the preliminary injunction
• City OF Oviedo v. Alafaya Utils., Inc.
  704 So. 2d 206· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-01-09 ·cited 17×
  The City of Oviedo appealed a temporary injunction preventing it from withholding approval of sewer improvements by Alafaya Utilities until Alafaya signed a franchise agreement. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that Oviedo's conditioning of utility approvals on a unilat
• 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
• Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro
  834 F.2d 326· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while prisoners have a Fourteenth Amendment right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain an abortion, the Eighth Amendment does not mandate state provision of elective, medically unnecessary abortions.
• Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv.
  766 F.2d 715· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction, it abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction because the appellees failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the injunction was necessary to aid the arbitration process.
• The F. & M. Schaefer Corp. & the F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.
  597 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the proposed acquisition of notes by a competitor likely violated antitrust laws and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the injunction.
• Jacksonville Mar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  571 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 16×
  The employer must allege and prove willingness to arbitrate and resort to contractual arbitration machinery as a prerequisite to a Boys Markets injunction.
• Winkleman v. NEW York Stock Exch.
  445 F.2d 786· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without affording the appellants an opportunity to be heard, but did not err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of success on the merits.
• Yachting Promotions, Inc. v. Broward Yachts, Inc.
  792 So. 2d 660· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-08-29 ·cited 15×
  Yachting Promotions appealed from a preliminary injunction requiring it to allow Broward Marine to exhibit at the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show. The Fourth DCA reversed, holding that Broward Marine failed to establish a likelihood of success on its constitutional access
• Dragomirecky v. Town OF Ponce Inlet
  882 So. 2d 495· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an injunction and stay to prevent the demolition of a house constructed in violation of building codes.
• Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox
  897 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 14×
  State laws proscribing deceptive advertising are preempted by federal law when applied to the advertising of fares by interstate and international airlines.
• Miss. Women's Med. Clinic v. McMILLAN
  866 F.2d 788· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 14×
• Lindsay v. The City OF SAN Antonio
  821 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the ordinance prohibiting portable signs likely serves the city's aesthetic interests and is not substantially broader than necessary.
• United States v. Dedra Estell Overton
  834 F.2d 1171· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the balance of harms weighed against granting it due to the timing.
• Gonzalez v. S. Methodist Univ.
  536 F.2d 1071· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-11 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for her discrimination claim and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class action status.
• Xeta, Inc. v. Atex, Inc.
  852 F.2d 1280· Fed. Cir.· 1988-07-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Xeta's motion for a preliminary injunction because Xeta failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its antitrust and tort claims.
• Allegra Enters., Inc. v. Fairchild
  455 So. 2d 1073· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-09-05 ·cited 12×
• Signode Corp. v. Weld-Loc Sys., Inc.
  700 F.2d 1108· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Signode failed to establish irreparable harm because the appellees have sufficient financial resources to cover potential damages, and lost sales of unpatented supplies are not compensable in a patent infringement case.
• Foley v. The Ala. State BAR
  648 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state action exemption barred the antitrust claims, but that the First Amendment claims were improperly decided on summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues.
• Pollgreen v. Morris
  496 F. Supp. 1042· S.D. Fla.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that due process requires a prompt post-seizure hearing for vessels seized under immigration laws, and that the administrative procedures offered were inadequate or unavailable.