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

• U.S. 1 Off. Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc.
  655 So. 2d 209· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-05-24 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.
  986 F.2d 1252· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 6×
  The National Mediation Board's proposed notice, stating it found the carrier unlawfully interfered with employee representation choice, exceeded its statutory authority by acting as an adjudicator rather than an investigator.
• Senate OF THE State OF Cal. v. Mosbacher
  968 F.2d 974· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the preliminary injunction, leaving redistricting decisions to the states.
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Bair
  957 F.2d 599· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a 'reasonable cause' standard, not traditional equitable principles, governs preliminary injunctions under section 306 of the 4-R Act, but the district court must consider evidence from both parties when applying this standard.
• Burger King Corp. v. Hall
  770 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 6×
  A terminated franchisee's continued unauthorized use of the franchisor's trademarks constitutes infringement and unfair competition, and the franchisee cannot use wrongful termination as a defense to avoid injunctive relief.
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. United States
  927 F.2d 1253· D.C. Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, thus affirming the denial of their request for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Title VI of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
• United States v. Rural Elec. Convenience Coop. Co.
  922 F.2d 429· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying injunctive relief, as federal interests necessitate a federal forum for resolving disputes involving federal bailouts and loan guarantees.
• Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Auto Body Panels OF Ohio, Inc.
  908 F.2d 951· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chrysler's motion for a preliminary injunction because Chrysler failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Dick Gregory v. Depte
  896 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1990-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the two-can per customer per month sanction as a coercive civil contempt, appealable as an injunction, but vacated the $10.00 per can sanction for lack of evidentiary basis and remanded for clarification of its nature.
• Newsom v. Norris
  888 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that while inmates have no property interest in continued employment as inmate advisors, they do have a liberty interest protected by the First Amendment against retaliation for exercising their speech rights.
• Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  723 F. Supp. 669· M.D. Fla.· 1989-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court must consider four factors to grant a preliminary injunction: likelihood of prevailing on merits, irreparable injury, harm to opposing parties, and public interest.
• Frederic D. Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  882 F.2d 407· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Corps' evaluation of practicable alternatives and public interest under the CWA and NEPA was not arbitrary or capricious, and thus denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Fechter v. HMW Indus., Inc.
  879 F.2d 1111· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly issued against corporate defendants Clabir and HMW Industries regarding Count II of the complaint, but vacated the injunctions against individual defendants and HamTech.
• The Video Trip Corp. v. Lightning Video, Inc.
  866 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly denied because significant contract disputes, including alleged breaches by the plaintiff, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding copyright ownership, precluding a finding of probable success on the merits.
• Colt Indus. Inc. v. Fidelco Pump & Compressor Corp. & Fidelco Equip. Corp.
  844 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the distributorship agreement was a franchise under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act because it granted a license to use a trade name and involved a community of interest.
• Forry, Inc. v. Neundorfer, Inc.
  837 F.2d 259· 6th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm.
• Francine Marxe v. C.W. Jackson
  833 F.2d 1121· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits was supported by the record, the district court erred in finding irreparable harm to the plaintiff without sufficient affirmative evidence, thus reversing the preliminary injunction.
• UST, Inc. v. The United States
  831 F.2d 1028· Fed. Cir.· 1987-10-15 ·cited 6×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable injury from being required to answer questionnaires.
• Busboom Grain Co., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  830 F.2d 74· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 6×
  A stay pending judicial review of an ICC abandonment order is not essential to preserve shippers' ability to seek relief, as a favorable court decision can restore the status quo.
• Kareem Faheem-El v. Klincar
  814 F.2d 461· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Illinois' blanket denial of bail to arrested parole violators pending their final revocation hearing likely violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Hale v. Dep't OF Energy
  806 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the Mercury Road stretch within the NTS is a nonpublic forum, and the DOE's regulations were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
• Chalfy v. Marrone
  804 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellants' constitutional claims regarding TLC's administration of limousine licensing requirements were without merit and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Comm. OF Cent. Am. Refugees ("Comite De Refugiados Centro-Americanos" or "Crece") v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  795 F.2d 1434· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the transfer of unrepresented aliens to detention facilities outside the San Francisco District does not, standing alone, constitute a deprivation of statutory privilege or due process rights, and thus does not warrant judicial intrusion into the Attorney Gene
• United States v. Akers
  785 F.2d 814· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the farmer's extensive wetland alteration activities, aimed at converting them to farmland, were not exempt from Clean Water Act permit requirements and affirmed the preliminary injunction.
• The Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Coston
  773 F.2d 1513· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or rely on an erroneous legal premise in denying the preliminary injunction, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA and APA claims.
• Outboard Marine Corp. v. Thomas
  773 F.2d 883· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 6×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the EPA lacked statutory authority under CERCLA to obtain an administrative warrant for preliminary design and surveying activities on private property when no emergency existed.
• Sardi's Rest. Corp. v. Sardie
  755 F.2d 717· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a realistic possibility of irreparable injury or a sharp balance of hardships in its favor.
• Liptak v. The United States
  748 F.2d 1254· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly referring the case to a special master without exceptional circumstances or consent, and that a transcript was necessary to review credibility findings.
• Sadowsky v. City OF NEW York
  732 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims regarding the recordation requirement of the SRO renovation law.
• FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Indus. Co., Ltd.
  730 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to protect FMC's trade secrets, finding FMC demonstrated irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits.
• Craig v. McDONOUGH
  704 F.2d 780· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the legal issues were inextricably intertwined with unresolved factual disputes, making it impossible to assess the likelihood of success on the merits at this prelimin
• In re Bristol Indus. Corp. v. Bristol Indus. Corp.
  690 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 6×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The bankruptcy court erred by treating a motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion without notice and by misapplying legal principles regarding bailments and sales of fungible goods.
• Palmieri v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  682 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the franchisee failed to present sufficient evidence of Mobil's bad faith or discriminatory motive to warrant a preliminary injunction under the PMPA. The PMPA does not require franchisors to use objectively reasonable rent criteria, only to avoid discriminato
• Princeton Combustion Research Labs., Inc. v. Dir., John McCARTHY, Jr., United States Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., Lewis Research Ctr. at Cleveland, Ohio. Appeal of Shaker Research Corp.
  674 F.2d 1016· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-29 ·cited 6×
  A district court's review of a government procurement decision is limited to determining if the agency's decision was irrational; if the decision is found rational, the court must deny a preliminary injunction, even if procedural irregularities occurred.
• Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. Goldschmidt
  506 F. Supp. 350· S.D. Fla.· 1981-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits or suffering irreparable injury.
• Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. Brown-Port Co.
  621 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-25 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation
  617 F.2d 807· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in evaluating the four factors for injunctive relief.
• Pharm. Soc'y OF the State OF NEW York, Inc. v. Lefkowitz
  586 F.2d 953· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Hopper v. Carter
  572 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's procedures for determining the death of missing servicemen, as amended by Service Regulations, satisfy due process requirements and do not violate constitutional rights.
• La. Consumer's League, Inc. v. La. State Bd. OF Optometry Exam'rs
  557 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a recent Supreme Court decision mandates reconsideration of the denial of a preliminary injunction against statutes prohibiting the price advertising of prescription eyeglasses.
• Div. 580, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Cent. NEW York Reg'l Transp. Auth.
  556 F.2d 659· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Union failed to make a clear showing of probable success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions to warrant a preliminary injunction against Taylor Law fact-finding proceedings.
• Jones v. Pac. Intermountain Express
  536 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because the moving party did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, despite a recent Supreme Court decision impacting the analysis. The matter is remanded for trial.
• Germon v. The Times Mirror Co.
  520 F.2d 786· 9th Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 6×
  A newspaper dealer is not immune from termination under contract provisions, even if they have filed an antitrust suit against the publisher, unless the termination is shown to be part of an unlawful anti-competitive scheme.
• Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Model Cities Agency
  519 F.2d 740· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• USAchem, Inc. v. Goldstein
  512 F.2d 163· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a restrictive covenant was valid to the extent it prevented solicitation of former customers, it was overly broad for general competition. The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief due to Chem's delay and the jury's finding of no damages, but re
• League OF Voluntary Hosps. & Homes OF NEW York v. Local 1199
  490 F.2d 1398· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1973-12-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, adjudging the Union in civil contempt, and imposing fines, as the CLC regulations had a rational basis and the Union violated court orders.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Datronics Eng'rs, Inc.
  490 F.2d 250· 4th Cir.· 1973-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court rescinded its prior order requiring a preliminary injunction and remanded the case for the district court to determine if an injunction should be issued.
• Penn Galvanizing Co. v. Lukens Steel Co.
  468 F.2d 1021· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-24 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Huseman v. Finch
  424 F.2d 1237· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-24 ·cited 6×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellants had not exhausted their administrative remedies as a hearing was still pending.
• Arrow Transp. Co. v. S. Ry. Co.
  308 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1962-09-07 ·cited 6×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to extend the statutory seven-month period of rate suspension set by the Interstate Commerce Commission, as this power is exclusively vested in the ICC.