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

• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated January 30 v. Hon. Robert L. Carter
  784 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 4×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum is generally not permitted without first submitting to a contempt citation, and the Perlman exception does not apply here.
• Adamsons v. Wharton
  771 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the appeal frivolous and awarding double costs and attorneys' fees.
• NO East-West Hwy. Comm., Inc. v. Chandler
  767 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 4×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the highway project was a modernization of an existing road and not a "major Federal action" requiring an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA.
• Nat'l Senior Citizens Law Ctr. v. Legal Servs. Corp.
  751 F.2d 1391· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 4×
• Am. Fed'n OF Television & Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. Inner City Broad. Corp.
  748 F.2d 884· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 4×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that the parties did not intend to be bound by an oral agreement, as federal labor law favors collective bargaining agreements and technical rules of contract do not control. The court reversed the denial of arbitration and
• Harris v. United States
  745 F.2d 535· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 4×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm, as adequate remedies exist in the Court of Claims.
• Champion v. State OF Cal.
  738 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the deduction of fair share fees, as existing Supreme Court precedent generally upholds such deductions and the specific circumstances did not warrant extraordinary rel
• The Hillhaven Corp. v. Wis. Dep't OF Health & Soc. Servs.
  733 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, given the appellate court's reversal of the prior ruling on the same issue.
• Spath v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  728 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Wald v. Regan
  708 F.2d 794· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Treasury Department regulation prohibiting travel-related expenses to Cuba lacked statutory authority because the 'savings clause' did not permit reliance on the repealed Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) when the specific authority was not being exercised
• Tenant Affairs Bd. v. Pierce
  693 F.2d 797· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the district court's determination of no irreparable harm.
• Burgess v. Affleck
  683 F.2d 596· 1st Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while Rhode Island's MCAC composition was non-compliant, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to warrant enjoining Medicaid cuts, and their APA claim also failed.
• Prewitt v. United States Postal Serv.
  662 F.2d 311· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a plaintiff claiming handicap discrimination by a federal employer must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, and that the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• Downstate Stone Co. v. United States
  651 F.2d 1234· 7th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction that enjoined the United States from enforcing criminal statutes related to national forest regulations, as Downstate failed to meet the standards for such an injunction.
• Seniors United FOR Action v. RAY
  635 F.2d 746· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion or erroneous legal premise.
• Anderson v. Fed. Election Comm'n
  634 F.2d 3· 1st Cir.· 1980-10-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an injunction was inappropriate due to a lack of factual basis to assess the constitutional claims.
• Pac. Legal Found. v. Costle
  627 F.2d 917· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the construction moratorium challenge and that appellants had little chance of success on the merits regarding funding cutoffs.
• Organized Fisherman of Florida v. Andrus
  488 F. Supp. 1351· S.D. Fla.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 4×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  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.
• Greenwald v. Robert P. Whalen, M.D.
  609 F.2d 665· 2d Cir.· 1979-11-15 ·cited 4×
  A nursing home proprietor challenging a Medicaid rate reduction is not entitled to a preliminary injunction if they fail to present specific challenges to the factual basis of the rating during the administrative appeal process.
• Staff Sergeant Agustin Correa v. Honorable William Graham Clayton, Jr.
  563 F.2d 396· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-19 ·cited 4×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court vacated the denial of injunctive relief and remanded the case to the District Court to consider whether Correa's retirement benefits vested, avoiding constitutional due process and exhaustion issues.
• Abercrombie v. Lum's, Inc.
  531 F.2d 775· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion for preliminary and permanent injunctions because the requested relief was either moot, unnecessary, or lacked a causal connection to the alleged antitrust violations.
• Wright v. Chief OF Transit Police
  527 F.2d 1262· 2d Cir.· 1976-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the named defendants, acting in their official capacity, are 'persons' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus the district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
• Perry v. ST. Pierre
  518 F.2d 184· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the City Charter section prohibiting police officers from engaging in political activity was not unconstitutional on its face and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Karpinski v. Resor
  419 F.2d 531· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-23 ·cited 4×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellant must exhaust administrative remedies by reporting for duty and undergoing a physical examination. The court also held that the statutory authority to extend active duty beyond enlistment for nat
• Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Dist. of Columbia v. Cap. Transit Co.
  214 F.2d 242· D.C. Cir.· 1954-05-07 ·cited 4×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court granted an injunction pending appeal, enjoining the company from paying a dividend and redeeming bonds, pending further investigation and report.
• Kelly v. Union Stockyards & Transit Co. of Chicago
  190 F.2d 860· 7th Cir.· 1951-08-08 ·cited 4×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court lacked primary jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims regarding removal from the Open Order List, and thus properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Secret Consulting, Inc. v. Fotohabadi
  2015 WL 1526196· S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-28 ·cited 3×
  The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, given the potential applicability of California law which may render key contract provisions unlawful.
• Am. Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Mgmt., LLC
  103 F.4th 765· 11th Cir.· 2024-06-03 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  American Alliance for Equal Rights challenged the Fearless Fund's grant contest, which limited applicant eligibility to Black women, arguing the racial exclusion violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981's prohibition on race discrimination in contracting. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Alli
• Friedman v. Snipes
  345 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-09 ·cited 3×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims regarding absentee ballot delivery and counting.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  236 F. Supp. 2d 1336· S.D. Fla.· 2002-12-12 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Mony Sec. Corp. v. Vasquez
  238 F. Supp. 2d 1304· M.D. Fla.· 2002-08-13 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted because the defendants were not customers of the plaintiff under NASD rules, thus no agreement to arbitrate existed. Compelling arbitration without an agreement constitutes irreparable harm.
• Morris Commc'ns Corp. v. PGA Tour, Inc.
  117 F. Supp. 2d 1322· M.D. Fla.· 2000-10-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, thus denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Miami Light Project v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  97 F. Supp. 2d 1174· S.D. Fla.· 2000-05-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction is warranted as to portions of the Cuba Affidavit related to Resolution R-202-96, finding a substantial likelihood of unconstitutionality under foreign affairs, commerce, and preemption doctrines.
• Loggerhead Turtle v. Cnty. Council of Volusia Cnty.
  92 F. Supp. 2d 1296· M.D. Fla.· 2000-03-24 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Volusia County's current artificial beachfront lighting ordinance does not violate the Endangered Species Act, and therefore, the county is entitled to summary judgment on claims related to lighting.
• MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
  991 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that loading MAI software into RAM constitutes copyright infringement and that soliciting MAI customers using information from MAI's customer database constitutes trade secret misappropriation.
• Tools v. Int'l Tool Supply
  984 F.2d 113· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that the dispute over the duration of the option agreement was for the court, not an arbitrator, to decide, and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying interim injunctive relief.
• Basham v. Freda
  805 F. Supp. 930· M.D. Fla.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, despite meeting other criteria.
• Polymer Tech. Corp. v. Emile Mimran
  975 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the sale of products by a distributor.
• Guess v. The Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs OF the State OF N.C.
  967 F.2d 998· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Guess's federal claims were barred by res judicata and the principles of District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, and the patients' derivative claims were moot due to lack of jurisdiction over Guess's case.
• Charles v. Abate, Jr.
  928 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 3×
  The Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and its implementing regulations do not afford railroad employees an implied private right of action to enforce drug-testing rules or recover damages for violations.
• AIR Line Pilots Ass'n v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
  898 F.2d 1393· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 3×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the classification of a labor dispute as "minor" under the Railway Labor Act is a jurisdictional issue, not a decision on the merits, and the district court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the employer's actions.
• Movie & Video World, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  723 F. Supp. 695· S.D. Fla.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Palm Beach County Ordinance 88-31, requiring the removal of doors from adult video booths, is a constitutional time, place, and manner regulation that does not violate the First Amendment, and that certain disclosure requirements within the ordinance were unco
• Nassau Boulevard Shell Serv. Station, Inc. v. Shell OIL Co.
  875 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Shell's notice of termination was timely under the PMPA because the 120-day clock began when Shell acquired actual knowledge of the grounds for termination, not merely upon hearing an allegation. The court also affirmed the denial of the franchisee's prelimina
• Frederic D. Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  871 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Corps' regulations, limiting NEPA analysis scope to federally controlled or responsible portions of a project, are a permissible interpretation of the NEPA and entitled to deference.
• Republic of Panama v. Air Panama Internacional, S.A.
  745 F. Supp. 669· S.D. Fla.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Campagna PER LE Farmacie IN Italia S.P.A. & Cosprophar, Inc.
  847 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits due to a serious question of likelihood of confusion.
• Mitson v. Coler
  670 F. Supp. 1568· S.D. Fla.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Veterans Administration Improved Pensions (VAIP) awarded pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 503(a)(8) as reimbursement for medical expenses should not be counted as income for determining eligibility for Florida's Medicaid Institutional Care Payments (ICP) Program.
• Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Warner
  665 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by filing a prior state court action, and thus denied the motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction.
• Neurological Associates-H. Hooshmand, M.D., P.A. v. Bowen
  658 F. Supp. 468· S.D. Fla.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  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
• Williams v. Salerno
  792 F.2d 323· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction preventing the Board of Elections from denying voter registration to students based on their dormitory residence, as the Board's actions violated New York election law and the