Preliminary Injunction Standard

798 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 306 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · 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×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  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.
• Ned L. Siegel v. Lepore
  234 F.3d 1163· 11th Cir.· 2000-12-06 ·cited 352×
  Republican presidential candidates and Florida voters sought a preliminary injunction to halt manual recounts of ballots in four Florida counties following the November 2000 election, alleging violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the First Amendment. The
• The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla. v. Callaway
  489 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-15 ·cited 350×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
• United States v. Jefferson Cnty.
  720 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 192×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., Inc.
  206 F.2d 738· 2d Cir.· 1953-06-30 ·cited 192×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff raised serious questions regarding a Section 7 Clayton Act violation and the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the plaintiff.
• Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
  596 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 190×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious basis for relief by not showing a violation of the exclusive distributorship contract or sufficient threat of irreparable injury.
• Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  749 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-31 ·cited 189×
  The court held that the standard for granting and reviewing preliminary injunctions is complex and often inconsistently applied, but requires balancing irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and public interest.
• Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc.
  640 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 179×
  The court adopts a new, third test for granting preliminary injunctions, aiming to provide clarity for district judges.
• Benda v. Grand Lodge OF the Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  584 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-28 ·cited 167×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the LMRDA to issue a preliminary injunction against the union's trusteeship, and that the balance of hardships and the existence of serious questions on the merits justified the injunction. However, the award of attorn
• Swain v. Junior
  961 F.3d 1276· 11th Cir.· 2020-06-15 ·cited 160×
  Medically vulnerable pretrial detainees at a Miami-Dade jail challenged COVID-19 conditions of confinement as violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring measures including social distancing. The Eleventh Circu
• Planned Parenthood League OF Mass. v. Bellotti
  641 F.2d 1006· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 157×
  The court held that requiring physicians to provide patients with factual information about the stage of fetal development does not unconstitutionally burden the abortion decision.
• LOS Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League
  634 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 135×
• Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd.
  604 F.2d 200· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-14 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders' uniform is a valid trademark and its use in the film "Debbie Does Dallas" constitutes infringement, dilution, and unfair competition, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A. v. Shaw-Ross Int'l Imports, Inc.
  756 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 127×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction by misapplying the law regarding likelihood of confusion and abandonment, and that a strong showing of infringement warranted granting the injunction.
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.
  690 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the irreparable injury standard and finding no facial falseness in the advertisement, thus reversing the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., Inc.
  526 F.2d 86· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 106×
  The court held that the district court erred by not considering the alternative test for granting a preliminary injunction, which allows for relief if serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant's favor, even without a high probability of
• Arnaldo Jimenez Fuentes v. Honorable Jaime Torres Gaztambide
  807 F.2d 236· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 104×
  The court held that the position of Regional Director of CRUV is one for which political affiliation is an appropriate requirement, thus reversing the preliminary injunction.
• A. O. Smith Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  530 F.2d 515· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-11 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm in the record before the district court, warranting reversal of the preliminary injunctions.
• Gulf & W. Indus., Inc. v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  476 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-12 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the consummation of a tender offer, as the plaintiff (A&P) demonstrated a probability of success on the merits regarding antitrust and securities law violations.
• Checker Motors Corp. v. Chrysler Corp. & Chrysler Motors Corp.
  405 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-06 ·cited 90×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Chrysler's rebate plan was not per se illegal price-fixing under the Sherman Act and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco
  490 F.2d 1334· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-15 ·cited 89×
  The dissent argues that a stock dividend, absent consideration, does not constitute a 'purchase or sale' under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and that the majority's interpretation is unprecedented and contradicts established precedent.
• Blackwell v. Issaquena Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  363 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-21 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the school regulation forbidding the wearing of 'freedom buttons' was reasonable and necessary for maintaining school discipline, given the significant disruptions caused by the students' conduct.
• Am. Hosp. Supply Corp. & Am. v. Mueller
  780 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 87×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding that the distributor demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm due to the supplier's insolvency and that the district court properly balanced the harms.
• Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc.
  784 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 86×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court's opinion is consistent with traditional standards for granting or denying a preliminary injunction.
• Oburn v. Shapp
  521 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction sought by white applicants challenging the Pennsylvania State Police's minority hiring goals.
• Md. - Nat'l Cap. Park & Planning Comm'n a Pub. body corporate v. U. S. Postal Serv.
  487 F.2d 1029· D.C. Cir.· 1973-08-23 ·cited 84×
  The court held that while the denial of a preliminary injunction is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, the NEPA issues were not adequately focused, necessitating a remand for further investigation by the district court.
• Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  423 So. 2d 927· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-16 ·cited 83×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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
• ELI Lilly & Co., Inc. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc.
  460 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, finding the patent valid and infringed, and that the procedural conduct of the trial court was not an abuse of discretion.
• The State OF NEW York v. The Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
  550 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 80×
  The court held that a violation of NEPA does not automatically constitute irreparable harm, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a sufficient threat of irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• The Wheelabrator Corp. v. Chafee
  455 F.2d 1306· D.C. Cir.· 1971-10-14 ·cited 80×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and the agency's decision not to negotiate was committed to agency discretion and not reviewable.
• ALL Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc.
  887 F.2d 1535· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-13 ·cited 78×
  The court held that a district court must make specific factual findings regarding market power and control over essential competitive elements before applying the per se rule to cooperative buying arrangements and price-fixing claims.
• 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
• Lathan v. Volpe
  455 F.2d 1111· 9th Cir.· 1971-11-15 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the state and federal highway officials must comply with the relocation assistance and environmental impact statement requirements of federal law before proceeding with further property acquisitions for the I-90 project.
• LeSPORTSAC, Inc. v. K Mart Corp.
  754 F.2d 71· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 75×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that LeSportsac raised serious questions regarding trade dress infringement and that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor.
• Planned Parenthood OF Minn., Inc. v. Citizens FOR Cmty. Action
  558 F.2d 861· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-10 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction and erred in denying the motion to intervene. The appeal was not moot.
• Pauls v. The Sec'y OF the AIR Force
  457 F.2d 294· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-27 ·cited 72×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over most issues, as the order appealed was not a final judgment, but had jurisdiction over the interlocutory order granting injunctive relief. The court reversed the grant of injunctive relief.
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  595 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-21 ·cited 71×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Cerro Metal Prods. v. Marshall
  620 F.2d 964· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 70×
  The dissenting judge holds that the original version of § 1903.4 permitted ex parte warrants, making the injunctions improper due to lack of probable success on the merits.
• Wainwright Sec. Inc. v. Wall St. Transcript Corp. & Richard A. Holman
  558 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the defendant's publication of abstracts of plaintiff's copyrighted research reports constituted copyright infringement and was not protected by the fair use doctrine or the First Amendment.
• Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc.
  817 F. Supp. 1558· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-13 ·cited 68×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• T.J. Cunningham v. Adams
  808 F.2d 815· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 66×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Allen G. Charles, M.D. v. Carey
  627 F.2d 772· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-29 ·cited 66×
  The court held that certain provisions of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, particularly those related to informed consent and waiting periods, impose unconstitutional burdens on a woman's right to an abortion and are subject to strict scrutiny.
• Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Farrow
  580 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 66×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court noted that the obscurity of federal regulations created unnecessary burdens on parties and the judicial system.
• Dopp v. Franklin Nat'l Bank
  461 F.2d 873· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his securities law claim or irreparable injury, thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts v. Consorcio Barr, S.A.
  320 F.3d 1205· 11th Cir.· 2003-02-05 ·cited 65×
  Four Seasons sought a preliminary injunction against Consorcio for allegedly gaining unauthorized access to its computer network in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other statutes. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and vacated the injunction, holding that the distric
• Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
  714 F.2d 1240· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 65×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that computer operating system programs, whether in object code or embedded in ROM, are copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act.
• Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency & William D. Ruckelshaus
  465 F.2d 528· D.C. Cir.· 1972-05-05 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the EPA's failure to adequately explain its decision not to suspend the registration of aldrin and dieldrin, particularly regarding the balancing of benefits against potential harm and the incorporation of carcinogenicity data, required a remand.
• Wright v. Rushen
  642 F.2d 1129· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 64×
  A preliminary injunction mandating extensive prison reforms must be set aside if the district court fails to apply the proper legal standards for assessing the plaintiffs' probability of success on the merits.
• Pac. Coast Meat Jobbers Ass'n, Inc. v. The Cost OF Living Council
  481 F.2d 1388· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1973-08-18 ·cited 64×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and that the C.L.C.'s actions had a rational basis and were within its statutory authority.
• Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp.
  672 F.2d 607· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-02 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the defendant's K. C. Munchkin appropriated protectable expression from the plaintiff's PAC-MAN audiovisual work, specifically its characters, warranting reversal of the denial of a preliminary injunction.