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

• Monahan v. State OF Neb.
  645 F.2d 592· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-01 ·cited 60×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted for Rose due to potential conflict between state and federal law, the ordered second hearing was vacated due to changed circumstances, and Monahan was not entitled to preliminary relief as he failed to show irrepara
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. Sombrotto
  449 F.2d 915· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that reversing a denial of preliminary injunctive relief in a labor dispute, especially after a supervening event like a national agreement, is an extraordinary and potentially inappropriate action for an appellate court.
• Urbain v. Knapp Bros. Mfg. Co.
  217 F.2d 810· 6th Cir.· 1954-12-01 ·cited 59×
  The court should not have granted a preliminary injunction without sufficient evidence to establish material facts and without requiring security from the appellee.
• Ewing v. Amoco OIL Co.
  823 F.2d 1432· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a franchisor cannot non-renew a trial franchise for any reason if the reasons are pretextual or invalid, and that a selling franchisor must ensure the purchasing franchisor offers a non-discriminatory franchise to the existing franchisee.
• Eligio Castro and Rafael Diaz Diaz v. United States
  775 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 56×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the appellants' claims, enjoining them from further litigation, and assessing costs, as they failed to exhaust administrative remedies, state valid claims, or demonstrate grounds for injunctive relief.
• Thompson v. Planning Comm'n OF the City OF Jacksonville
  464 So. 2d 1231· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-02-11 ·cited 56×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  Thompson property owners sought to enjoin construction of an office building across the street after the Planning Commission granted a parking variance to the owners. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding that the variance was im
• Unistar Corp. v. Child
  415 So. 2d 733· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-05-04 ·cited 56×
  Unistar Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to prevent former employees from using a customer list compiled at significant expense to solicit Unistar's customers. The trial court denied the injunction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the customer list const
• Warner Bros., Inc. v. GAY Toys, Inc.
  658 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a likelihood of confusion as to sponsorship of a toy car, even if the plaintiff does not manufacture toy cars, is sufficient to invoke the protection of the Lanham Act and warrant preliminary injunctive relief.
• Minn. Bearing Co. v. White Motor Corp.
  470 F.2d 1323· 8th Cir.· 1973-01-09 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, but erred in dismissing the parent corporation as a defendant, treating it as a summary judgment without sufficient clarity.
• United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc.
  711 F.2d 1164· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-28 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a presentence report may not be disclosed to third parties without a compelling demonstration that disclosure is required to meet the ends of justice, and that the district court erred in denying Peerless's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Zepeda v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  753 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 53×
  The court held that an injunction's scope is not overly broad simply because it benefits non-parties, and class certification is not required if class-wide relief is necessary to protect individual plaintiffs' rights.
• Constructors Ass'n of W. Pa. v. Kreps
  573 F.2d 811· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-07 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the MBE set-aside provision of the Local Public Works Act, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits or sufficient irreparable
• W. Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan
  689 F.2d 950· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the OSHA inspection warrant was supported by administrative probable cause and was not overly broad. The district court improperly considered evidence not presented to the magistrate when re
• Kampmeier v. Ewald Nyquist
  553 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient factual showing of likely success on the merits to warrant preliminary relief, and thus affirmed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Aguirre v. Chula Vista Sanitary Serv. & Sani-Tainer, Inc.
  542 F.2d 779· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-23 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred by limiting its inquiry solely to the probability of success on the merits when considering a preliminary injunction, and that a two-part test involving serious questions and a balance of hardships should be applied.
• Thomas v. Evans
  880 F.2d 1235· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 48×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions because the record was insufficient to support findings of no reasonable legal or factual basis for the claims, and the improper purpose finding was dependent on those flawed conclusions.
• Dollar Rent A CAR OF Wash., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  774 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction and in holding Travelers in civil contempt because Dollar and Viking failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the contempt order was based on i
• Thompson v. Kerr-McGEE Ref. Corp.
  660 F.2d 1380· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the notice and summary statement provisions of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act must be strictly complied with, and that the franchisee has a right to a jury trial for actual damages. The district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating a dismissal
• United States v. Thier
  801 F.2d 1463· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-10 ·cited 47×
  The court should require the district court to allow defendants access to funds for defense and living expenses unless the government shows a compelling reason.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Cosmair, Inc.
  821 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 46×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that stopping severance pay after an employee filed an ADEA charge constituted unlawful retaliation, and that a waiver of the right to file such a charge is void as against public policy.
• Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's BIG BOY OF Steubenville, Inc.
  670 F.2d 642· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Elby's television advertising created a likelihood of confusion regarding its Ohio restaurants' affiliation with the Big Boy trademark, warranting injunctive relief under the Lanham Act. However, the court found the district court erred in not applying the sam
• Caulfield v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF NEW York
  583 F.2d 605· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the collection of ethnic data, but erred in sua sponte remanding the case to HEW for further administrative proceedings.
• Johnson v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  734 F.2d 774· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding due process claims related to non-judicial foreclosure.
• Am. Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt
  714 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, even considering potential NEPA violations, because the public interest in protecting fragile desert resources outweighed the plaintiffs' claims.
• Kenai OIL & GAS, Inc. v. The Dep't OF the Interior OF the United States
  671 F.2d 383· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-17 ·cited 45×
  The Superintendent cannot refuse approval of communitization agreements solely because he believes Indian lands would fare better economically outside the proposed unit.
• Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland
  637 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-20 ·cited 45×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in its review standard and in finding that federal defendants complied with NEPA regarding alternatives and project segmentation.
• Barry J. Koerpel, M.D. v. Heckler
  797 F.2d 858· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 44×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that Dr. Koerpel's claims of liberty deprivation were sufficiently colorable to establish federal court jurisdiction, but ultimately found that he had not raised difficult or doubtful questions on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publ'g Co., Inc.
  762 F.2d 1374· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 44×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.
• Aleknagik Natives Ltd. v. Andrus
  648 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and should have granted preliminary injunctive relief.
• Corenswet, Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc.
  594 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 44×
  An express contract term allowing termination 'for any reason' permits arbitrary termination, and the Uniform Commercial Code's good faith obligation does not override such express terms.
• Washington v. DeBeaugrine
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1332· N.D. Fla.· 2009-10-01 ·cited 43×
  A state official's erroneous denial of a Medicaid beneficiary's federal right to a hearing before benefit termination or reduction can be challenged in federal court, not solely in state court.
• Guar. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ryan
  928 F.2d 994· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-25 ·cited 43×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the contract did not grant an unmistakable right to treat supervisory goodwill as regulatory capital for a fixed period, and FIRREA's statutory requirements for phasing out goodwill apply. Therefore, the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Chalk v. United States Dist. Court Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  840 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction, finding that the teacher with AIDS demonstrated probable success on the merits and irreparable injury.
• W.E. Callaway, Jr. v. Block
  763 F.2d 1283· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 43×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the 1984 peanut quota regulations did not conflict with the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 and did not violate due process, affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Jewelle Gresham v. Chambers
  501 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-13 ·cited 43×
  The court held that absent proof of discrimination, informal word-of-mouth recruiting is permissible for staff appointments, and Title VII does not preempt claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Wali v. Coughlin
  754 F.2d 1015· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Commissioner's refusal to allow inmates to receive a critical report on prison conditions, without applying established censorship guidelines or demonstrating a clear and present danger, violated their rights.
• Christian Schmidt Brewing Co. & Stroh Brewery Co., Inc. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc.
  753 F.2d 1354· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the relevant geographic market.
• Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. The Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  739 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 42×
  The court should have abstained from hearing the case due to important state interests implicated in the unlawful detainer proceedings.
• Indus. Bank OF Wash. v. Tobriner
  405 F.2d 1321· D.C. Cir.· 1968-02-15 ·cited 42×
  The court dismissed the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no need for interlocutory relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Miss. Power & Light Co. & Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  760 F.2d 618· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 41×
  The court held that a temporary injunction was not supported by a sufficient showing of irreparable injury, which is a necessary prerequisite for such relief.
• Sperry Int'l Trade, Inc. v. Gov't OF Israel
  670 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 41×
  The court held that Sperry failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a necessary element for a preliminary injunction under either prong of the Second Circuit's standard. Therefore, the district court erred in granting the injunction.
• Buchanan v. United States Postal Serv.
  508 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Postal Service's consolidation of district offices was not a "change in the nature of postal services" requiring submission to the Postal Rate Commission, but affirmed the preliminary injunction for the Retail Analysis Program (RAP) due to factual disputes
• Grubbs v. Butz
  514 F.2d 1323· D.C. Cir.· 1975-06-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a federal employee is not required to exhaust administrative remedies after 180 days have passed without final agency action, and administrative proceedings may continue concurrently with a civil action, provided the employee is given a full opportunity to pre
• Silva v. Romney
  473 F.2d 287· 1st Cir.· 1973-02-02 ·cited 40×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  A private developer, partnered with a federal agency for a housing project, can be enjoined from taking actions affecting the environment pending the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
• Allison v. Froehlke
  470 F.2d 1123· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-27 ·cited 39×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The denial of a preliminary injunction was proper because the plaintiffs did not show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits regarding the Corps of Engineers' modifications to a congressionally authorized flood control project.
• A. H. Bull S.S. Co. v. Nat'l Marine Eng'rs' Beneficial Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  250 F.2d 332· 2d Cir.· 1957-11-21 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions in labor disputes, even if involving supervisors, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction.
• Gloria Banks v. Trainor
  525 F.2d 837· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction and its modifications were properly entered because the notices provided to food stamp recipients regarding benefit reductions were constitutionally inadequate and failed to comply with federal regulations.
• Nat'l Land & Inv. Co. v. Arlen Specter
  428 F.2d 91· 3d Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 38×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary prerequisites.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Great Am. Indus., Inc.
  407 F.2d 453· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-23 ·cited 38×
  Corporate officers and finders have a duty to disclose material information regarding finders' fees in securities transactions.
• Ill. Psychological Ass'n v. Falk
  818 F.2d 1337· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-12 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction against state regulation, and thus the denial of the injunction was proper.