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
-
863 F.2d 39·
10th Cir.·
1988-12-13
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court erred by applying a test more stringent than intermediate scrutiny when evaluating the plaintiff's equal protection claim.
-
696 F. Supp. 1445·
M.D. Fla.·
1988-10-06
·cited 2×
The court held that Florida Statute § 390.001(4) as amended is constitutionally insufficient because its judicial bypass procedure lacks specificity regarding anonymity, confidentiality, and expedition, failing to meet constitutional standards.
-
856 F.2d 1301·
9th Cir.·
1988-09-02
·cited 2×
The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against a state court proceeding, as the state court had jurisdiction over the surety and the injunction improperly anticipated future disputes and infringed on federal policy.
-
A preliminary injunction may be granted to preserve assets if the legal remedy of attachment under Rule 64 is demonstrably inadequate, even if attachment is generally available.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong probability of success on the merits regarding their claims that audits and overpayment demands violated an Ohio statute o
-
819 F.2d 25·
2d Cir.·
1987-05-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the appellant failed to make a substantial showing that his rights were violated by the asset freeze, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
-
The court held that Ellsworth Air Force Base is a federal enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, and federal procurement law does not require federal officials to follow state utility franchise laws when procuring electricity.
-
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the threatened injury to plaintiffs outweighed the harm to the defendant.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for its trademark infringement and anti-dilution claims, thus denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
792 F.2d 1376·
9th Cir.·
1986-04-28
·cited 2×
The court held that the Secretary of the Interior must comply with the notice and hearing procedures of ANILCA section 810(a) when he finds that significant restrictions on subsistence uses are "unlikely," not just when he finds they "would" occur.
-
772 F.2d 201·
6th Cir.·
1985-08-26
·cited 2×
-
769 F.2d 84·
2d Cir.·
1985-07-30
·cited 2×
The court should affirm the district court's injunction preventing the Corps from removing the Route 18 bridge until local assurances of replacement are received.
-
766 F.2d 690·
2d Cir.·
1985-06-28
·cited 2×
The court held that the Police Department's plan to restrict demonstrations on the sidewalk in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral during the Gay Pride March was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction justified by public safety concerns.
-
749 F.2d 1413·
9th Cir.·
1984-12-27
·cited 2×
The court held that timber harvesting on private lands conveyed to an Alaska Native Corporation, even if located within the exterior boundaries of a National Forest Monument, is not prohibited by ANILCA section 503(d), which applies only to public lands.
-
751 F.2d 917·
8th Cir.·
1984-12-14
·cited 2×
The court held that while the district court may not have abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, certain disclosures may be deficient, and the case is remanded for further factual findings and potential injunction.
-
The Florida Department of Banking and Finance appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to stop Standard Federal Savings & Loan Association and K-Mart from marketing deposit accounts through K-Mart retail locations. The court upheld the trial court's denial, holding
-
724 F.2d 827·
9th Cir.·
1984-01-25
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, affirming that the effective date of trademark abandonment was June 28, 1982, and that California Cedar, as the first to use the mark commercially thereafter, was entitled to exclusive rights
-
576 F. Supp. 1197·
S.D. Fla.·
1983-12-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for a de facto merger claim, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
In this consolidated appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of preliminary and temporary injunctions sought by property owners to prevent the Surf Club from disposing of their proprietary interests, while affirming the stay of the action pend
-
698 F.2d 945·
8th Cir.·
1983-02-02
·cited 2×
The court held that while the plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm and the public interest favors her, the likelihood of success on the merits of her retaliatory eviction claim is too doubtful to grant a preliminary injunction.
-
701 F.2d 768·
9th Cir.·
1983-01-04
·cited 2×
A probationary federal employee cannot assert a due process claim based on termination for unsatisfactory performance, nor can they establish an implied contract claim based solely on internal agency manual procedures.
-
681 F.2d 1352·
11th Cir.·
1982-08-02
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the appellant was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims under the relevant federal law and union constitution.
-
690 F.2d 301·
2d Cir.·
1982-05-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their discrimination claim and would not suffer irreparable harm.
-
652 F.2d 310·
3d Cir.·
1981-05-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the solicitation of bondholder approval for an asset sale, where the bonds themselves were not tendered, did not constitute a tender offer or involve securities requiring registration under federal securities laws.
-
640 F.2d 1130·
9th Cir.·
1981-04-03
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the Postal Service to follow its own regulations regarding bulk mail permits.
-
A state statute requiring sheriffs to possess a high school diploma or its equivalent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
649 F.2d 489·
7th Cir.·
1980-09-25
·cited 2×
The court held that an increase in the number of shares sought in a tender offer does not constitute a new offer requiring a full extension of the offer period under the Williams Act and SEC regulations.
-
623 F.2d 694·
10th Cir.·
1980-06-27
·cited 2×
The court dissolved the temporary injunction pending appeal, finding that the balance of harms and public interest favored allowing the coal mining operations to proceed.
-
637 F.2d 582·
9th Cir.·
1980-06-05
·cited 2×
The court held that while the preliminary injunction was improperly granted due to overbreadth, the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and should instead be remanded for consideration of appropriate procedural relief.
-
-
The court held that a temporary delay in AFDC benefit checks due to administrative procedures, while inconvenient, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the Social Security Act, and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief.
-
541 F.2d 130·
2d Cir.·
1976-08-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof required for a preliminary injunction, and thus the denial of the injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
-
529 F.2d 567·
2d Cir.·
1976-01-29
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
-
498 F.2d 947·
2d Cir.·
1974-06-03
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits or that irreparable harm would occur without the injunction.
-
491 F.2d 684·
7th Cir.·
1974-02-11
·cited 2×
The court denied the motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding no strong showing of likely success on the merits for the plaintiffs' claim that the state's AFDC income reporting program violated federal law or the Constitution.
-
490 F.2d 985·
Temp. Emer. Ct. App.·
1973-12-05
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court erred by not determining if the Cost of Living Council's order deferring a price increase was supported by substantial evidence.
-
The court held that the dispute was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and that injunctive relief was not warranted pending the Board's decision.
-
449 F.2d 763·
1st Cir.·
1971-10-04
·cited 2×
A preliminary injunction should not be granted without a reasonable possibility of success on the merits, and the petitioner has not demonstrated such a possibility.
-
A district court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board from conducting unfair labor practice proceedings or to review interlocutory rulings.
-
The court held that mandamus is not appropriate to compel a district court to hear a motion for a preliminary injunction before a motion to dismiss, as there was no abuse of discretion.
-
A trial court errs in granting a preliminary injunction without including factual findings in support thereof and without addressing the bond requirement, conducting an evidentiary hearing thereon, or explaining reasons for waiving the bond.
-
The court held that a plaintiff seeking to enjoin state foreclosure proceedings must demonstrate that the injunction falls within one of the three narrow exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, which the plaintiff failed to do.
-
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because it was not based on the claims in his complaint and sought relief beyond the scope of the complaint, and denied the motion to appoint counsel as no exceptional circumstances were shown.
-
320 So. 3d 195·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2019-08-27
·cited 1×
A statute requiring MMTCs to be vertically integrated and perform all supply-chain activities directly conflicts with the constitutional definition permitting entities to engage in one or more of those activities, rendering the statute unconstitutional as a restriction on a const
-
820 F. Supp. 2d 1273·
M.D. Fla.·
2011-10-24
·cited 1×
The court held that requiring TANF applicants to submit to suspicionless drug testing constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and the plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of succeeding on his constitutional challenge.
-
753 F. Supp. 2d 1217·
N.D. Fla.·
2010-11-08
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on its constitutional challenges to Florida's electioneering communications statutes, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
664 F. Supp. 2d 1246·
S.D. Fla.·
2009-10-22
·cited 1×
The court granted a preliminary injunction against defendant's comparative advertising because the ads were misleading, even if not literally false, and likely to deceive consumers.
-
569 F. Supp. 2d 1237·
N.D. Fla.·
2008-06-24
·cited 1×
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the amended Florida statute requiring verification of identification numbers for voter registration did not facially violate constitutional rights.
-
559 F. Supp. 2d 1274·
N.D. Fla.·
2008-05-29
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiff fraternity failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding its First Amendment claims, and thus denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
442 F. Supp. 2d 1257·
M.D. Fla.·
2006-07-28
·cited 1×
Mass suspicionless pat-downs at NFL games constitute unreasonable searches under the Florida Constitution and Fourth Amendment because the Tampa Sports Authority failed to establish a substantial and real risk of a terrorist attack justifying a 'special needs' exception.