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

• Toraki Matsumoto v. PUA
  775 F.2d 1393· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the two-year disqualification provision of the Honolulu City Charter is likely unconstitutional and reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Grp. Health Inc. v. Schweiker
  549 F. Supp. 135· S.D. Fla.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 3×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court dismissed the action without prejudice, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria for a preliminary injunction.
• Graham v. Schweiker
  545 F. Supp. 625· S.D. Fla.· 1982-06-02 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing, irreparable harm, or a likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Detzner
  19 La. 557· N.D. Fla.· 2018-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The Secretary of State's opinion categorically barring early voting on college campuses violates the First, Fourteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments by imposing significant burdens on young voters without sufficient justification.
• Green Bullion Fin. Servs., LLC v. Money4gold Holdings, Inc.
  639 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for its copyright, trademark, or false advertising claims, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. KEV Enters., Inc.
  634 F. Supp. 2d 1324· M.D. Fla.· 2009-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on their breach of contract claim based on defendants' financial defaults, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Cont'l Grp., Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., LLC
  622 F. Supp. 2d 1357· S.D. Fla.· 2009-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court found that TCG established a substantial likelihood of success on its CFAA claim, warranting a preliminary injunction.
• Mont. Prof'l Sports, LLC v. Leisure Sports Mgmt., Inc.
  422 F. Supp. 2d 1271· M.D. Fla.· 2006-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its trademark infringement claim, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Jacksonville Coal. for Voter Protect. v. Hood
  351 F. Supp. 2d 1326· M.D. Fla.· 2004-10-25 ·cited 2×
  Jacksonville Coalition for Voter Protection and affiliated organizations sought a preliminary injunction to compel Duval County to open additional early voting sites, arguing that African-American voters faced disproportionate barriers to voting in violation of Section 2 of the V
• Parkland Republican Club v. City of Parkland
  268 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2003-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the city's policy of excluding all political organizations from participating in its annual parade is a reasonable restriction on speech within a limited public forum, as it is viewpoint neutral and serves the parade's purpose of maintaining a family-oriented,
• Wyner v. Struhs
  254 F. Supp. 2d 1297· S.D. Fla.· 2003-02-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a nude art installation intended as a peace symbol constitutes expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, and a total ban on nudity is not a narrowly tailored restriction.
• Women's Emergency Network v. Bush
  191 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of imminent harm or that the court had authority to enjoin the actions of the named defendants.
• Staver v. Am. Bar Ass'n
  169 F. Supp. 2d 1372· M.D. Fla.· 2001-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were not ripe for review and that they failed to establish irreparable harm, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Lazaro v. United States Dep't of Agric.
  186 F. Supp. 2d 1203· M.D. Fla.· 2001-08-24 ·cited 2×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the statute does not prohibit preliminary injunctive relief for permanent disqualification from the Food Stamp Program, even for trafficking violations, and that the plaintiff met the prerequisites for such relief.
• Bulova Corp. v. Bulova Do Brasil Com. Rep. Imp. & Exp. Ltda.
  144 F. Supp. 2d 1329· S.D. Fla.· 2001-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, justifying a preliminary injunction against the defendant's use of the Bulova mark.
• Fla. State Conf. of NAACP Branches v. City of Daytona Beach
  54 F. Supp. 2d 1283· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Traffic Management Plan's provisions for bridge closures and pass issuance violated the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and the Dormant Commerce Clause.
• Chase Manhattan Bank v. Dime Sav. Bank of N.Y.
  961 F. Supp. 275· M.D. Fla.· 1997-05-05 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate imminent irreparable injury, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, or that the threatened injury outweighed potential harm to the defendants and the public inte
• Hill v. Butterworth
  941 F. Supp. 1129· N.D. Fla.· 1996-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff has standing and the case is ripe for review, as the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of Chapter 154 of the Act to his habeas petition creates immediate hardship and a dilemma regarding compliance.
• Michel-Trapaga v. City of Gainesville
  907 F. Supp. 1508· N.D. Fla.· 1995-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the city's Event Policy, as applied, constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and assembly, and granted the preliminary injunction.
• Caterpillar, Inc. v. Nationwide Equip.
  877 F. Supp. 611· M.D. Fla.· 1994-11-14 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that defendants' advertising and sale of Cukurova products, manufactured using Caterpillar components but not under Caterpillar's direct quality control, constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.
• Glen Raven Mills, Inc. v. Ramada Int'l, Inc.
  852 F. Supp. 1544· M.D. Fla.· 1994-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits for a preliminary injunction, as the evidence of actual confusion was insufficient and the defendant's intent to infringe was not proven, despite similarities in marks and a
• Intel Corp. v. Ulsi Sys. Tech., Inc.
  995 F.2d 1566· Fed. Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The panel held that a broad cross-license agreement between companies effectively immunizes third parties from patent infringement claims related to the licensed patents.
• LAC DU Flambeau Band OF Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, Inc.
  991 F.2d 1249· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants' affidavits were sufficient to raise a dispute regarding whether race played a motivating part in their actions, requiring further inquiry.
• DOE v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist.
  986 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against school-sponsored prayer and affirmed the denial of intervention as modified.
• Weaver v. Henderson
  984 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction against the Massachusetts State Police's 'no mustache' policy, as the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional challenge.
• United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc.
  982 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Aswegan v. Henry
  981 F.2d 313· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  Prisoners do not have a right to a specific means of access to the courts, and the ISP's policy does not deny them adequate access.
• Thomas v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  978 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the majority erred in reversing the preliminary injunction based on a de novo review of the facts and blurring the distinction between preliminary and permanent injunctions.
• Merrill Lynch v. King
  804 F. Supp. 1512· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-19 ·cited 2×
  A preliminary injunction should be granted to prevent arbitration outside the forums specified in the parties' agreement, as the agreement supersedes general arbitration rules and customer preference does not override contractual terms.
• Allstate Ins. v. Preston
  842 F. Supp. 1441· S.D. Fla.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while continued state court litigation after removal is improper, a federal court cannot enjoin such proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act unless an exception applies, and the relitigation exception does not apply to a dismissal without prejudice.
• Henderson v. Lane
  979 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clearly established right to more frequent showers or exercise, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. The denial of preliminary injunctive relief was also affirmed.
• United Cerebral Palsy Ass'ns OF NEW York State, Inc. v. Cuomo
  966 F.2d 743· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a two-week delay in Medicaid reimbursement payments does not violate the Medicaid Act or the Constitution, as it does not constitute a change in payment rates or methods and remains within statutory time limits.
• MAI Basic Four, Inc. v. Basis, Inc.
  962 F.2d 978· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the preliminary injunction, the injunction itself was overly broad and not supported by the findings of vexatious conduct.
• John Maye Co., Inc. v. Nordson Corp.
  959 F.2d 1402· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-08 ·cited 2×
  A party must have the right to sell the grantor's goods or use its commercial symbols to be considered a dealer under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law; mere distribution of promotional materials or limited use of trademarks is insufficient.
• McLaughlin Ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Williams
  801 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1992-04-02 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that the state's policy of refusing to fund liver/small bowel transplants was likely unreasonable and the procedure could not be deemed experimental on the current record.
• S & M Constructors, Inc. v. The Foley Co.
  959 F.2d 97· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-16 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the Contract Disputes Act does not require a stay of arbitration proceedings, and the subcontractor failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Chez SEZ III Corp. v. Twp. OF Union
  945 F.2d 628· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that abstention under the Pullman doctrine was proper because the state law regarding zoning ordinances was unsettled and its resolution could eliminate the federal constitutional claim, and the denial of a preliminary injunction was also proper as the plaintiffs w
• Vuitton v. Helene White
  945 F.2d 569· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 2×
  An order denying an application for an ex parte seizure order under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) is immediately appealable as a denial of an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the district court's refusal to grant such an order in this case was an abuse of discretion.
• Cellular Sales, Inc. v. MacKay
  942 F.2d 483· 8th Cir.· 1991-08-13 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the name 'Cellular Sales' is generic and not entitled to trade name protection, and the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm.
• Ala. Sportservice, Inc. v. Nat'l Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n
  767 F. Supp. 1573· M.D. Fla.· 1991-06-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction could not be granted without an evidentiary hearing to determine the intent and impact of the horsemen's groups' refusal to consent to simulcasting, as the record was insufficient to establish a conspiracy or group boycott under the Sh
• Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc.
  936 F.2d 417· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the PGA's U-groove ban, finding serious questions on the merits and that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in favor of the plaintiffs.
• Lakedreams v. Taylor
  932 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that Lakedreams demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim.
• Church of Scientology Flag Servs. Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater
  756 F. Supp. 1498· M.D. Fla.· 1991-02-04 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The Court holds that Scientology has standing to sue and that Clearwater Ordinance 3479-84 is constitutional. The Court grants Scientology's motion for partial summary judgment on standing but denies it on other issues, while denying Clearwater's motion on standing but granting i
• Christian Knights OF THE KU Klux Klan Invisible Empire, Inc. v. The Dist. OF Columbia
  919 F.2d 148· D.C. Cir.· 1990-10-27 ·cited 2×
  The court should affirm the district court's order allowing petitioners to use the traditional march route.
• Rosemount, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n
  910 F.2d 819· Fed. Cir.· 1990-08-02 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court affirmed the ITC's denial of temporary relief, finding that the presumption of irreparable harm was rebutted by evidence and that the balance of harms and public interest factors supported denial.
• Local Union NO. 733 OF the Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division
  906 F.2d 149· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction against the employer's drug testing program pending arbitration, as traditional arbitral remedies could address potential harm.
• Alessi v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  893 F.2d 1444· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from awarding relief for violations of state law, even if framed as a procedural due process claim.
• United States v. One Parcel of Real Est. at 1303 Whitehead St.
  729 F. Supp. 98· S.D. Fla.· 1990-01-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government must make a compelling showing of good cause, analogous to the standard for a preliminary injunction, to obtain a stay of civil forfeiture proceedings.
• William G. Wilcox, D.O. v. United States
  888 F.2d 1111· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the law of the case doctrine to a summary judgment motion after denying a preliminary injunction, and that the sale of the 1935 Auburn was void under Michigan law because the seller failed to endorse and deliver the certifi
• Cotter v. Desert Palace, Inc.
  880 F.2d 1142· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a significant possibility of irreparable injury or a fair chance of success on the merits.