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

• Sec'y of State Cord Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Bldg. Inst., Inc.
  339 So. 3d 1070· Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-05-27 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court reviewed a circuit court's decision to vacate a stay on a temporary injunction. The court found the temporary injunction unlawful because it granted affirmative relief rather than preserving the status quo, which is the sole purpose of such injunctions. The ca
• Sammie Invs. v. Strategica Cap. Assocs.
  247 So. 3d 596· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-05-09 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Univ. Books & Videos, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  33 F. Supp. 2d 1364· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-19 ·cited 5×
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim regarding the zoning ordinance's limitations on adult entertainment establishments.
• T-Marc, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty.
  804 F. Supp. 1500· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 5×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while most of the challenged ordinance provisions were likely constitutional, certain employee disclosure requirements were overly intrusive and not substantially related to the stated government interests, warranting an injunction.
• NEW England Braiding Co., Inc. v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
  970 F.2d 878· Fed. Cir.· 1992-07-28 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying NEBCO's motion for a preliminary injunction, as NEBCO failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the patent's inventorship.
• Dirk Laureyssens v. Idea Grp., Inc.
  964 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the doctrine of 'secondary meaning in the making' is not recognized under the Lanham Act, and reversed the preliminary injunction for trade dress infringement. It also affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement.
• First Assembly of God of Naples v. Collier Cnty.
  775 F. Supp. 383· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-04 ·cited 5×
  The court denied the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment free exercise and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims.
• Rey v. Guy Gannett Publ'g Co.
  766 F. Supp. 1142· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 5×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  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.
• Jupiter Wreck, Inc. v. the Unidentified
  691 F. Supp. 1377· S.D. Fla.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the resolution of title to the res in federal court without state consent, thus a preliminary injunction cannot issue in the in rem action. The removed state law action must be remanded.
• Harlan L. Jacobsen v. United States Postal Serv.
  812 F.2d 1151· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of 20 U.S.C. § 107d-3 as applied to newspaper vending machines on perimeter sidewalks, and that the balance of hardships tipped in his favor.
• BAM Historic Dist. Ass'n v. Koch
  723 F.2d 233· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction and the dismissal of the due process claim, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• United States v. Generix Drug Corp.
  498 F. Supp. 288· S.D. Fla.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the government is entitled to an injunction against the distribution of generic drugs if it demonstrates a reasonable possibility that differences in excipients between the generic and pioneer drug affect the generic drug's safety and effectiveness.
• Ohio Contractors Ass'n v. The Econ. Dev. Admin.
  580 F.2d 213· 6th Cir.· 1978-07-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Carey Dale Grayson v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  121 F.4th 894· 11th Cir.· 2024-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the inmate failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on his Eighth Amendment claim regarding the nitrogen hypoxia execution protocol.
• Dream Defenders v. Governor of the State of Fla.
  119 F.4th 872· 11th Cir.· 2024-10-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the amended riot statute clarified that it does not criminalize peaceful protest, thus the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on their vagueness and overbreadth claims.
• Wood v. Fla. Dep't of Educ.
  2023 WL 6785071· N.D. Fla.· 2024-04-09 ·cited 4×
  Katie Wood, a transgender teacher in Florida, brought First Amendment and Title VII claims challenging a state law prohibiting public school employees from providing students with preferred pronouns or titles that do not correspond to their sex assigned at birth. The district cou
• Credo LLC v. Speyside Invs. Corp.
  259 So. 3d 893· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-08-15 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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
• Tancogne v. Tomjai Enters. Corp.
  408 F. Supp. 2d 1237· S.D. Fla.· 2005-11-15 ·cited 4×
  The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of confusion due to the similarity of the marks and products, and denied Defendant Tomjai's motion.
• Milner Voice & Data, Inc. v. Tassy
  377 F. Supp. 2d 1209· S.D. Fla.· 2005-06-21 ·cited 4×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the non-compete restrictive covenant was enforceable against Defendant Rodriguez, who had intentionally breached it, and that there was a presumption of irreparable harm
• Mediaone of Del., Inc. v. E & a Beepers & Cellulars
  43 F. Supp. 2d 1348· S.D. Fla.· 1998-10-28 ·cited 4×
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, asset freeze, accounting, and expedited discovery, finding that the defendants violated federal law by manufacturing and selling unauthorized cable television decoder devices.
• Robinson v. Power Pizza, Inc.
  993 F. Supp. 1462· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-11 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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
• Daniels v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty.
  985 F. Supp. 1458· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that disparities in athletic facilities and opportunities between the boys' baseball and girls' softball teams at MIHS violated Title IX and the Florida Educational Equity Act, entitling the plaintiffs to a preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Fisher
  22 F.3d 262· 11th Cir.· 1994-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The United States sought a preliminary injunction against maritime salvors (the Fishers) to prevent them from using prop wash deflectors in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, which destroys seagrass and damages the marine ecosystem. The court held that the Florida Keys S
• Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int'l Ltd. & Reebok Int'l Ltd.
  998 F.2d 985· Fed. Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider post-sale confusion for trademark and trade dress claims and by misapplying the Gorham test for design patent infringement.
• Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Emps. v. Greenberg
  983 F.2d 286· D.C. Cir.· 1993-01-29 ·cited 4×
  The court's decision does not displace the Executive's role in national security decision-making.
• 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.
• Tamiami P'rs, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
  788 F. Supp. 566· S.D. Fla.· 1992-03-05 ·cited 4×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction, it would abstain from exercising it pending exhaustion of tribal remedies, and therefore stayed the federal action.
• Elbert Blango v. Thornburgh
  942 F.2d 1487· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's transfer to a federal penitentiary was statutorily and constitutionally valid, and the district court did not err in denying his habeas corpus petition.
• MT. Graham RED Squirrel v. Yeutter
  930 F.2d 703· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction motion without an evidentiary hearing, as monitoring program allegations were properly before it and could support an injunction.
• James A. Privitera, M.D. v. Cal. Bd. OF Med. Quality Assurance
  926 F.2d 890· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's stay order, which effectively denied a preliminary injunction, was immediately appealable and that the stay itself was improper as it did not meet the criteria for any established abstention doctrine. The court also found that the district
• Justin Indus., Inc. v. Choctaw Sec., L.P.
  920 F.2d 262· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Nat'l People's Action v. Vill. OF Wilmette & Fred W. Stoecker
  914 F.2d 1008· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the Village's fingerprinting requirement for solicitors, finding it likely violated First Amendment free speech rights.
• Am. Civil Liberties Union of Fla., Inc. v. Florida Bar
  744 F. Supp. 1094· N.D. Fla.· 1990-08-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Florida Canon 7(B)(1)(c), prohibiting judicial candidates from announcing views on disputed legal or political issues, is likely unconstitutional as it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
• Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Grip-Pak, Inc.
  906 F.2d 679· Fed. Cir.· 1990-06-20 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the patent holder failed to sufficiently demonstrate the necessary equitable factors.
• Roho v. Marquis
  902 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's actions in assembling patented wheelchair cushions into a mattress and relabeling it did not constitute reverse palming off under the Lanham Act because a new product was created.
• DFW Metro Line Servs. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  901 F.2d 1267· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Pinch-A-Penny OF Pinellas Cnty., Inc. v. Chango
  557 So. 2d 940· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-03-09 ·cited 4×
  Pinch-A-Penny appeals the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction to enforce noncompetition agreements against former employees who went to work for a competitor. The appellate court reversed, holding that Pinch-A-Penny established all elements for a preliminary injunction
• Higgs v. Bland
  888 F.2d 443· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but vacated the denial of attorney fees under the consent decree.
• Concerned Women FOR Am., Inc. v. Lafayette Cnty. & Oxford Pub. Library
  883 F.2d 32· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the library, by allowing diverse community groups to use its auditorium, created a public forum, and therefore could not exclude CWA based on the religious content of its meetings.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. World Wide Factors, Ltd.
  882 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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. BNS Inc.
  848 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court held that the district court had authority to issue a preliminary injunction under the All Writs Act to preserve its jurisdiction under the APPA, and modified the injunction by appointing an independent trustee.
• Half Moon BAY Fishermans' Mktg. Ass'n v. Carlucci
  847 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, as the defendants had minimally complied with NEPA and MPRSA requirements for the initial dredging phase.
• Dist. 29 v. The NEW River Co.
  842 F.2d 734· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employees' execution of broad "Receipt and Release" documents in settlement of a grievance, in exchange for substantial lump sum payments, constituted a knowing and voluntary waiver of all claims against the employer, including any claim for health benefit
• Paris v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  843 F.2d 561· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction, as the legislative intent underlying public housing provisions forbids skipping over families because they are too poor.
• Joint Bd. OF Control OF the Flathead v. United States
  832 F.2d 1127· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because it failed to consider the potentially superior priority of the Tribes' fishing rights, which predated irrigation rights.
• Newmont Mining Corp. v. Pickens
  831 F.2d 1448· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the tender offer's disclosure of financing was insufficient under the Williams Act and SEC regulations, as it failed to provide specific details about borrowed funds.
• United States v. Torres
  826 F.2d 151· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-14 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the Clean Water Act applies in Puerto Rico and that the appellant failed to preserve his constitutional takings claim.
• Am. Trading Transp. Co., Inc. v. United States
  791 F.2d 942· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 4×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Maritime Administration (MarAd) did not err in permitting temporary transfers of subsidized oil tankers into the Alaskan oil trade, as the agency adequately considered the arguments of domestic carriers.
• Boyd v. Roland
  789 F.2d 347· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that property eligible for inclusion in the National Register is protected by the National Historic Preservation Act, even if not officially determined eligible. However, the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion given the project's prog
• Southerland v. Thigpen
  784 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prisoner's interest in breastfeeding her infant son is outweighed by the state's compelling interests in maintaining prison security, order, and resources, and that such a right is fundamentally inconsistent with incarceration.