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

• Am. Television & Commc'ns Corp. v. Floken, Ltd.
  629 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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
• The Libertarian Party OF Ind. v. Packard
  741 F.2d 981· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  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
• Nat'l Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. Donovan
  737 F.2d 67· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing an interlocutory injunction to enforce its prior order, as the Department of Labor was free to amend its regulations through proper rulemaking. The court also found the district court failed to properly analyze the factors f
• Detroit v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  727 F.2d 1391· 6th Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Frumer v. Cheltenham Twp.
  709 F.2d 874· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction was not moot and affirmed the denial because the ordinance was a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation.
• Conn. Res. Recovery Auth. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.
  705 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-06 ·cited 8×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a request for injunctive enforcement of a contract's status quo provision pending arbitration requires a demonstration of supporting equitable factors, such as the absence of an adequate remedy at law or a danger of irreparable harm.
• The Port Auth. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. The Port Auth. OF NEW York & NEW Jersey
  698 F.2d 150· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying class certification based on a misinterpretation of the plaintiff's claim as seeking individual promotions rather than the suppression of protected speech. The court also reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction, fi
• S. E. Human Dev. Corp. v. Schweiker
  687 F.2d 1150· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 8×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that South Dakota failed to comply with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981's requirements for timely submission of reports and holding public hearings for community service block grant funds. Consequently, the Secretary was obligated to distribute funds
• The Singer Co. v. P. R. Mallory & Co., Inc.
  671 F.2d 232· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an injunction against patent reissue proceedings and staying the Patent Office, as the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and other necessary prerequisites for injunctive relief.
• Cintron-Garcia v. Romero-Barcelo
  671 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Energy & James B. Edwards
  659 F.2d 150· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Mobil failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a necessary element for a preliminary injunction, and thus the injunction was improperly granted.
• Layne-Western Co., Inc. v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO
  650 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 8×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the interpretation of which contributions are due under the collective bargaining agreement is an arbitrable issue, but the determination of delinquency based on those contributions is for the trustees. The court also held that the issuance of a preliminary in
• Roberts v. Austin
  632 F.2d 1202· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that Congress and the Department of Agriculture have precluded the type of verification procedure sought by the appellees.
• The Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Brock Adams
  629 F.2d 587· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellees complied with Executive Order 11,990, NEPA, and section 608 of the Military Construction Act, and that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Sadegh Shamloo v. Miss. State Bd. OF Trs. OF Insts. OF Higher Learning
  620 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred AND Forty-Four Welfare Recipients v. King
  610 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because the appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their claims about the segregation of welfare fraud investigations and the right to counsel.
• Emerson Elec. Co. v. The Black & Decker Mfg. Co.
  606 F.2d 234· 8th Cir.· 1979-09-18 ·cited 8×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the transfer order was appealable, there was no personal jurisdiction over Limited, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case.
• Farshy v. Kagan
  585 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-07 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Munson v. Gilliam
  543 F.2d 48· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and federal intervention in state criminal proceedings was unwarran
• Munters Corp. v. Burgess Indus. Inc.
  535 F.2d 210· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the lower court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the balance of equities did not decidedly favor the party seeking the injunction.
• The Wickes Corp. v. Indus. Fin. Corp.
  493 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 8×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the parties' express exclusion of the Florida Arbitration Code rendered it inapplicable, and under Florida common law, agreements to arbitrate future disputes are unenforceable, thus the district court should have stayed arbitration.
• The Nat'l Nutritional Foods Ass'n & Solgar Co., Inc. v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  491 F.2d 845· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against FDA regulations concerning Vitamins A and D.
• Michael and Cynthia Pride v. The Cmty. Sch. Bd. OF Brooklyn
  488 F.2d 321· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly denied a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the balance of hardships tipped in their favor regarding the school board's reassignment plan.
• Citizens FOR A Better Env't, Inc. v. Nassau Cnty.
  488 F.2d 1353· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or irreparable harm, given the unresolved state law questions regarding the plaintiff orga
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  457 F.2d 381· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to continue operating the New York-Chatham passenger trains.
• Pvt. E2 Donald Jack Anderson v. Laird
  437 F.2d 912· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while precedent generally refuses intervention in punitive activations of civilian-soldiers for hair length, the majority's reasoning regarding First and Ninth Amendment rights is flawed.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cap. Gains Research Bureau, Inc.
  300 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1961-12-18 ·cited 8×
  The court should have granted a preliminary injunction against an investment adviser who profited by secretly trading in stocks they recommended to clients.
• Frieda Rader and Paul Rader v. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. OF Philadelphia
  242 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1957-03-05 ·cited 8×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The appellate court held that the District Court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, not on res judicata grounds, because indispensable parties destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
• Vaughn C. Payne, Sr. v. Gus F. Koehler
  225 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1955-08-10 ·cited 8×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for rehearing is not an appeal from a final decision and thus the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
• Sawyer v. United States Steel Co.
  197 F.2d 582· D.C. Cir.· 1952-05-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the preliminary injunctions must be stayed pending further review to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable injury.
• Transunion Risk & Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Reilly
  181 So. 3d 548· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-12-02 ·cited 7×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  TransUnion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement against former employee James Reilly. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court misapplied the statutory
• Johnston v. Tampa Sports Auth. & Henry G. Saavedra
  530 F.3d 1320· 11th Cir.· 2008-06-18 ·cited 7×
  Gordon Johnston, a season ticket holder for Tampa Bay Buccaneers games, challenged the Tampa Sports Authority's pat-down search policy instituted at the NFL's mandate as violating the Fourth Amendment and Florida Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's pr
• Palmer v. Braun
  155 F. Supp. 2d 1327· M.D. Fla.· 2001-07-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of their copyright infringement claim was too tenuous to warrant injunctive relief.
• Deltona Transformer Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  115 F. Supp. 2d 1361· M.D. Fla.· 2000-01-11 ·cited 7×
  Deltran sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Wal-Mart from using the trademark "BATTERY TENDER" on battery chargers, alleging trademark infringement, false designation, dilution, and unfair competition. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that Deltran faile
• Carillon Importers Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Grp., Inc.
  913 F. Supp. 1559· S.D. Fla.· 1996-01-23 ·cited 7×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the defendant's vodka packaging infringed upon the plaintiff's trade dress, and granted a preliminary injunction.
• Covino v. Patrissi
  967 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the random visual body-cavity search policy at NWSCF was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and thus not an unreasonable regulation under the Fourth Amendment.
• Gerber Garment Tech., Inc. v. Lectra Sys., Inc.
  916 F.2d 683· Fed. Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 7×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  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.
• Ocean Bio-Chem, Inc. v. Turner Network Television, Inc.
  741 F. Supp. 1546· S.D. Fla.· 1990-07-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act, and thus denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claim.
• Miss World (UK) Ltd. v. MRS. Am. Pageants, Inc.
  856 F.2d 1445· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits for service mark infringement and unfair competition, and thus affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• W. Allis Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bowen
  852 F.2d 251· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the Medicare anti-fraud statute and that the district court erred in failing to recognize statutory authority to enjoin antitrust violations. The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief for t
• Hudson River Sloop Clear-Water, Inc. v. Dep't OF the Navy
  836 F.2d 760· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Navy's homeport operational aspects and housing plans were not 'connected actions' under NEPA, thus not requiring a single environmental impact statement.
• Christy v. City OF ANN Arbor
  824 F.2d 489· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Ann Arbor ordinance does not impose a severe restriction on First Amendment free expression, but the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Lobo Enters., Inc. v. The Tunnel, Inc.
  822 F.2d 331· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 7×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• R.I. Minority Caucus, Inc. v. Baronian
  590 F.2d 372· 1st Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the alleged harm was dissipated by the passage of the 1978 election, rendering the request for interim relief moot.
• Algonquin SNG, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Admin.
  518 F.2d 1051· D.C. Cir.· 1975-08-11 ·cited 7×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Touchston v. McDERMOTT
  234 F.3d 1130· 11th Cir.· 2000-11-17 ·cited 6×
  Registered voters in Florida challenged the constitutionality of Florida Statute § 102.166(4) governing manual ballot recounts during the 2000 presidential election recount, seeking an injunction to prevent manual recounts and certification of results containing recounts. The Ele
• CBS, Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture
  9 F. Supp. 2d 1333· S.D. Fla.· 1998-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Satellite Home Viewers Act's definition of 'unserved household' relies on an objective FCC standard for signal intensity, not subjective subscriber reports of picture quality. PrimeTime 24's reliance on subscriber self-reporting is insufficient to comply w
• Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. A-B Distribs., Inc.
  910 F. Supp. 587· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-17 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.