Preliminary Injunction Requirements

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

• Nat'l Distrib. Co., Inc. v. James B. Beam Distilling Co. & Nat'l Distillers Prods. Co.
  845 F.2d 307· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Brand Withdrawal Act did not govern the parties' relationship after their written distribution contract expired and they proceeded on an at-will basis, thus the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Chilcott v. Verne ORR
  747 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the airman failed to show irreparable harm and because military discharge procedures do not violate due process or constitutional provisions against ex post facto laws.
• Interox Am. v. PPG Indus., Inc.
  736 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding breach of contract and trade secret claims.
• Small v. Kiley
  567 F.2d 163· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should not have been entered without the district court making required findings regarding likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, and without determining jurisdiction.
• The Robinswood Cmty. Club v. Volpe
  506 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that under the CEQ guidelines, an environmental impact statement was not required for the highway project because it was not practicable to halt construction, despite federal actions occurring after NEPA's effective date.
• Jouvence Ctr. FOR Advanced Health, LLC v. Jouvence Rejuvenation Ctrs., LLC
  14 So. 3d 1097· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-06-10 ·cited 9×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a preliminary injunction granted to JRC against JCAH and the Haskins, finding that the trial court failed to make the required factual findings and failed to establish JRC's likelihood of success on the merits regarding whether the patient files
• Star Satellite, Inc. v. City OF Biloxi
  779 F.2d 1074· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its constitutional or state law claims regarding the zoning ordinance's time re
• Parfums Stern, Inc. v. United States Customs Serv.
  575 F. Supp. 416· S.D. Fla.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 9×
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary prerequisites, including a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Topanga Press, Inc. v. City OF LOS Angeles
  989 F.2d 1524· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the City's Adult Entertainment Business Zoning Ordinance because the City may not have provided constitutionally sufficient alternative relocation s
• Kellas v. Lane
  923 F.2d 492· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the inmate failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, an inadequate remedy at law, or irreparable harm, thus the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• In re Rare Coin Galleries OF Am., Inc. v. Vinick & Young
  862 F.2d 896· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the trustee had standing, the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction because the balance of harm did not favor the trustee and the remedy of a bill to reach and apply was unavailable at that stage.
• Trans Meridian Trading Inc. v. Empresa Nacional de Comercializacion de Insumos
  829 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that California law prohibits enjoining payment on a letter of credit, even in cases of alleged fraud, unless there is a clear showing of intentional fraud or evil intent, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate such fraud by the beneficiary.
• Am. Television & Commc'ns Corp. v. Floken, Ltd.
  629 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a cable television distributor has standing under 47 U.S.C. § 605 to sue hotels that intercept and retransmit subscription programming signals intended for the distributor, as this constitutes an injury redressable by the court.
• Stewart v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  762 F.2d 193· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the employee's claim of retaliatory suspension because the employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not properly commence an action for that claim. Furthermore, the court held that even if jurisdict
• Detroit v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  727 F.2d 1391· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) has primary jurisdiction over disputes involving the cancellation of joint rail rates, requiring courts to defer to the ICC's expertise in ratemaking and cost analysis.
• Warner v. The Cent. Tr. Co., N.A.
  715 F.2d 1121· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant failed to meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction, specifically the likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury.
• Cintron-Garcia v. Romero-Barcelo
  671 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits and the balance of harms did not favor injunctive relief.
• Roberts v. Austin
  632 F.2d 1202· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Congress and the Department of Agriculture have precluded the type of verification procedure sought by the appellees.
• Sadegh Shamloo v. Miss. State Bd. OF Trs. OF Insts. OF Higher Learning
  620 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 8×
  University regulations that restrict student demonstrations to 'activities of a wholesome nature' are unconstitutionally vague and an impermissible content-based restriction on speech, violating the First Amendment.
• Farshy v. Kagan
  585 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits and any harm could be remedied by back pay.
• Lobo Enters., Inc. v. The Tunnel, Inc.
  822 F.2d 331· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Lanham Act and in denying a preliminary injunction based on an unsupported narrow definition of the plaintiff's market.
• Algonquin SNG, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Admin.
  518 F.2d 1051· D.C. Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 7×
  The court held that 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b) does not grant the President the substantive authority to impose license fees of the magnitude at issue, as it is limited to direct import controls.
• Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. A-B Distribs., Inc.
  910 F. Supp. 587· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for its claims of trademark infringement and breach of contract, thus denying the motion for preliminary and permanent injunction.
• U.S. 1 Off. Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc.
  655 So. 2d 209· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-05-24 ·cited 6×
  U.S. 1 Office Corp. appeals from a trial court order granting Falls Home Furnishings, Inc. a temporary injunction preventing U.S. 1 from interfering with Falls' advertising sign on U.S. 1's building. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discreti
• Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. Brown-Port Co.
  621 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-25 ·cited 6×
  A preliminary injunction cannot be granted based solely on the potential irreparable harm to a non-party sublessee; the plaintiff must demonstrate irreparable harm to itself.
• Pharm. Soc'y OF the State OF NEW York, Inc. v. Lefkowitz
  586 F.2d 953· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the basic requirements for such relief, including showing probable success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Model Cities Agency
  519 F.2d 740· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to establish a substantial probability of success on the merits regarding breach of contract or violation of citizen participation requirements.
• Penn Galvanizing Co. v. Lukens Steel Co.
  468 F.2d 1021· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the interpretation of Navy specifications and antitrust claims.
• Sammie Invs. v. Strategica Cap. Assocs.
  247 So. 3d 596· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-05-09 ·cited 5×
  A temporary injunction cannot be granted to preserve assets for satisfaction of a money judgment when the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law through monetary damages. Irreparable injury requires harm that cannot be cured by money damages.
• Rey v. Guy Gannett Publ'g Co.
  766 F. Supp. 1142· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Credo LLC v. Speyside Invs. Corp.
  259 So. 3d 893· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-08-15 ·cited 4×
  An injunction requiring deposit of funds into the court registry is proper where the funds are clearly identifiable, were never the property of the enjoined party, belong to either the plaintiff or a third party, and were intended for a specific purpose in a foreclosure action. T
• Robinson v. Power Pizza, Inc.
  993 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the defendant's refusal to deliver food to the predominantly African-American community of American Beach, while delivering to the predominantly Caucasian community of Amelia Island Planta
• Tex. Catastrophe Prop. Ins. Ass'n v. Morales
  975 F.2d 1178· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance Association (CATPOOL) possesses a constitutional right to retain its own counsel in civil matters, and the statutory amendment forcing it to use the Attorney General violated this right.
• Justin Indus., Inc. v. Choctaw Sec., L.P.
  920 F.2d 262· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was appealable and that the district court erred in its materiality determination, remanding for further proceedings on permanent relief.
• DFW Metro Line Servs. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  901 F.2d 1267· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable injury, as money damages would be adequate compensation.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. World Wide Factors, Ltd.
  882 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the asset freeze and appointment of a special master were proper, the specific hourly rate limitations for attorney fees were arbitrary and required reconsideration.
• United States v. Torres
  826 F.2d 151· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Clean Water Act applies in Puerto Rico and that the appellant failed to preserve his constitutional takings claim.
• Spath v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  728 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the student failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for his constitutional claims and contract claims, thus reversing the preliminary injunction.
• Organized Fisherman of Florida v. Andrus
  488 F. Supp. 1351· S.D. Fla.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits or a substantial threat of irreparable injury, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  236 F. Supp. 2d 1336· S.D. Fla.· 2002-12-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the authority under the All Writs Act to enjoin CIGNA from proceeding with a settlement in another federal court that threatens the jurisdiction and integrity of this multidistrict litigation.
• Republic of Panama v. Air Panama Internacional, S.A.
  745 F. Supp. 669· S.D. Fla.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the recognized government of Panama, not the unrecognized Noriega/Palma regime, is entitled to control Air Panama's assets in the United States, and denied intervention by counsel for the unrecognized regime.
• Neurological Associates-H. Hooshmand, M.D., P.A. v. Bowen
  658 F. Supp. 468· S.D. Fla.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity and that plaintiffs were not entitled to an immediate hearing under either statutory or constitutional grounds when payments were temporarily withheld due to suspected fraud. The court also denied
• Grp. Health Inc. v. Schweiker
  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.
• Graham v. Schweiker
  545 F. Supp. 625· S.D. Fla.· 1982-06-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing, irreparable harm, or a likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Chase Manhattan Bank v. Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y.
  961 F. Supp. 275· M.D. Fla.· 1997-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate imminent irreparable injury, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, or that the threatened injury outweighed potential harm to the defendants and the public inte
• Caterpillar, Inc. v. Nationwide Equip.
  877 F. Supp. 611· M.D. Fla.· 1994-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that defendants' advertising and sale of Cukurova products, manufactured using Caterpillar components but not under Caterpillar's direct quality control, constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.
• McLaughlin Ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Williams
  801 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that the state's policy of refusing to fund liver/small bowel transplants was likely unreasonable and the procedure could not be deemed experimental on the current record.
• Church of Scientology Flag Servs. Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater
  756 F. Supp. 1498· M.D. Fla.· 1991-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The Court holds that Scientology has standing to sue and that Clearwater Ordinance 3479-84 is constitutional. The Court grants Scientology's motion for partial summary judgment on standing but denies it on other issues, while denying Clearwater's motion on standing but granting i
• Local Union NO. 733 OF the Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division
  906 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction against the employer's drug testing program pending arbitration, as traditional arbitral remedies could address potential harm.
• Ebsco Indus., Inc. v. Lilly
  840 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 2×
  A preliminary injunction may be granted to preserve assets if the legal remedy of attachment under Rule 64 is demonstrably inadequate, even if attachment is generally available.