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

• Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. Sch. Bd.
  483 F. Supp. 2d 1224· S.D. Fla.· 2007-04-06
  The court held that the school board's denial of official recognition and privileges to the Gay-Straight Alliance club violated the Equal Access Act, and granted a preliminary injunction.
• Faculty Senate of Fla. Int'l Univ. v. Winn
  477 F. Supp. 2d 1198· S.D. Fla.· 2007-02-08
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the injunction would serve the public interest, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Revelex Corp. v. World Travel Holdings, Inc.
  511 F. Supp. 2d 1320· S.D. Fla.· 2007-01-16
  The court held that injunctive relief was available for breaches of confidentiality but not for breaches of non-compete or exclusive use provisions, which were subject to arbitration or lacked irreparable harm.
• Fla. Ass'n of Prof'l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Div. of Legis. Info. Servs. of the Fla. Off. of Legis. Servs.
  431 F. Supp. 2d 1228· N.D. Fla.· 2006-05-12 ·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment.
• Yahweh v. United States Parole Comm'n
  428 F. Supp. 2d 1293· S.D. Fla.· 2006-04-25
  The court rejected the magistrate's recommendation, denied the plaintiff's complaint for declaratory judgment and motion for preliminary injunction, and dismissed the action.
• Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs
  399 F. Supp. 2d 1335· M.D. Fla.· 2005-11-10
  The court held that plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding the Clean Water Act claims, finding the Corps likely issued a general permit that fails to comply with statutory requirements for similarity of activities and minimal environment
• SII Invs., Inc. v. Jenks
  370 F. Supp. 2d 1213· M.D. Fla.· 2005-05-26
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of both the NASD Code and the account application's arbitration agreements, and therefore, the defendant can be compelled to arbitrate.
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Hollinger Inc.
  Del. Ch.· 2004-07-29
  The Court of Chancery denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the sale of the Telegraph Group did not constitute a sale of "substantially all" of the corporation's assets under Del. Gen. Corp. Law § 271, and that equity did not require a stockhold
• Titus v. Skills
  868 So. 2d 686· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-04-02 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  Florida appellate court quashed a temporary injunction because the trial court failed to make the requisite factual findings supporting the four preliminary injunction criteria.
• Milin v. Nw. Fla. Land, L.C.
  870 So. 2d 135· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-12-31 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  Appellants challenged a trial court's temporary injunction order affecting disputed property. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to address the four required criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction and provided insufficient factual findings to suppo
• Burgos v. Univ. of Cent. Fla. Bd. of Trs.
  283 F. Supp. 2d 1268· M.D. Fla.· 2003-08-28
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for a preliminary injunction, as he did not possess a constitutionally protected right to immediate admission to the university.
• Sun-Sentinel Co. v. City of Hollywood
  274 F. Supp. 2d 1323· S.D. Fla.· 2003-07-25
  The court held that the Florida pedestrian regulation statute is content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leaves open ample alternative avenues for communication, thus denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Reese v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  242 F. Supp. 2d 1292· S.D. Fla.· 2002-12-05
  Plaintiffs, residents of the James E. Scott Homes public housing development, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Miami-Dade County from relocating residents and demolishing units as part of a HUD-approved HOPE VI revitalization project. The court denied the motion, findin
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Benchmark Cap. P'rs IV, L.P.
  Del. Ch.· 2002-07-15
  The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits regarding its claims that the proposed merger and issuance of Series D Preferred Stock required a class or seri
• United Teachers of Dade v. Stierheim
  213 F. Supp. 2d 1368· S.D. Fla.· 2002-07-10
  The court held that excluding a publication from a press room based on its content or viewpoint, even if it is a union publication, violates the First Amendment.
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Aquila, Inc. v. [Unknown]
  Del. Ch.· 2002-05-10
  The Court of Chancery denied Aquila's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that while Aquila demonstrated a probability of success on the merits regarding the dilutive voting provision of the Stock Employee Compensation Trust (SECT) under fiduciary duty standards, it fail
• Miami Area Local v. United States Postal Serv.
  173 F. Supp. 2d 1322· S.D. Fla.· 2001-11-16
  The court denied the union's motion for emergency injunctive relief, finding they failed to establish irreparable injury or that the threatened injury outweighed the harm to the USPS.
• Aura Nightclub v. Orange Cnty.
  166 F. Supp. 2d 1358· M.D. Fla.· 2001-09-17
  Orange County enacted temporary and permanent ordinances restricting rave clubs' operating hours. When the nightclub operator was criminally charged with violating the ordinance, the federal district court invoked the Younger abstention doctrine and declined to hear the plaintiff
• Comcast SCH Holdings, Inc. v. Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc.
  168 F. Supp. 2d 1338· M.D. Fla.· 2001-08-17 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the developer's submission and approval of development plans, which included utility easements, constituted a sufficient 'dedication' under the Cable Act to grant a cable company access, even before formal plat recordation.
• One World One Family Now v. City of Key W.
  152 F. Supp. 2d 1352· S.D. Fla.· 2001-07-25
  The court denied the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding the new ordinance's constitutionality.
• Moore v. Navy Pub. Works Ctr.
  139 F. Supp. 2d 1349· N.D. Fla.· 2001-04-10 ·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, primarily due to lack of standing and ripeness, and that the Navy's interpretation of the study 'initiation' date was permissible.
• Boy Scouts of Am. v. Till
  136 F. Supp. 2d 1295· S.D. Fla.· 2001-03-21
  The court held that the School Board is enjoined from preventing the Boy Scouts from using public school facilities and buses due to their membership policy.
• Waterman Broad. Corp. v. Fort Myers Broad. Co.
  56 F. Supp. 2d 1358· M.D. Fla.· 1999-04-01
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
• Radcliffe Ex Rel. Collins v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  38 F. Supp. 2d 994· M.D. Fla.· 1999-02-16 ·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and therefore their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction must be denied.
• Paul Y. v. Singletary
  979 F. Supp. 1422· S.D. Fla.· 1997-09-30
  The court held that while the original IEP could not be reinstated, the state was enjoined from changing transition plans without prior notice to parents, as federal law requires.
• Rodriguez v. United States
  983 F. Supp. 1445· S.D. Fla.· 1997-09-17 ·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court found that federal statutes regulating alien eligibility for benefits are subject to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, due to Congress's plenary power over immigration.
• Fla. Coll. of Bus. v. Accrediting Council for Indep. Colleges & Schs.
  954 F. Supp. 256· S.D. Fla.· 1996-12-23
  The court granted a preliminary injunction, remanding the case to the accrediting agency for further findings because the agency's decision to withdraw accreditation was not supported by substantial evidence.
• Merrill Lynch v. Green
  936 F. Supp. 942· S.D. Fla.· 1996-03-29 ·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a financial institution is entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent arbitration of claims against it, based on immunity under the Bank Secrecy Act and waiver of arbitration by the claimant's conduct.
• Johnson v. Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc.
  899 F. Supp. 579· M.D. Fla.· 1995-09-06
  The court held that waiving the age eligibility rule for a disabled student athlete was a reasonable accommodation that did not fundamentally alter the nature of the program, thus granting a preliminary injunction.
• Zeller v. the Florida Bar
  909 F. Supp. 1518· N.D. Fla.· 1995-06-16
  The court held that the time restrictions on soliciting and accepting judicial campaign contributions under Canon 7C(1) were unconstitutional as they unduly restricted First Amendment rights of speech and association without being narrowly tailored to the state's interest in prev
• Chad v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  861 F. Supp. 1057· S.D. Fla.· 1994-06-20
  Chad sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Fort Lauderdale from enforcing Beach Rule 7.5(c), which prohibits soliciting, begging, and panhandling on the city's beach and adjacent sidewalk, claiming the rule violated his First Amendment rights. The court held that the beach a
• Fenio v. Mut. of Omaha Ins.
  868 F. Supp. 318· S.D. Fla.· 1994-06-14 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, entitling her to a preliminary injunction requiring the defendant to pay for her medical treatment.
• Devereaux v. Colvin
  844 F. Supp. 1508· M.D. Fla.· 1994-02-16 ·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court vacated the preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits and irreparable injury, and granted sanctions against the plaintiff and counsel for frivolous litigation.
• Cabral v. Olsten Corp.
  843 F. Supp. 701· M.D. Fla.· 1994-02-04 ·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the termination of medical benefits constitutes irreparable harm, and granted a preliminary injunction allowing the plaintiff to elect COBRA coverage.
• Whitaker v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n (In Re Olympia Holding Corp.)
  161 B.R. 524· M.D. Fla.· 1993-09-10
  The court held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to enjoin the ICC's show cause order as it exceeded statutory authority, it abused its discretion by enjoining all future ICC proceedings.
• Hilo v. Exxon Corp.
  997 F.2d 641· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-30
  The court held that section 2805(e) of the PMPA, which limits injunctive relief for nonrenewals made in good faith, applies only to permanent injunctive relief, not preliminary injunctions.
• Harris v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
  995 F.2d 877· 8th Cir.· 1993-06-18
  The appeal from the preliminary injunction is moot because the patient has completed the treatment, and the case is remanded for trial on the merits.
• Landmark Land Co., Inc. v. Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  990 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-29 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the four criteria for preliminary injunctions and by not issuing its own findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• CPC Int'l, Inc. v. Blandito Food Distrib. Corp.
  835 F. Supp. 636· S.D. Fla.· 1993-04-28
  The court held that CPC failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial threat of irreparable injury, thus denying its motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Dist. 17 v. A & M Trucking
  991 F.2d 108· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-12 ·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to require security for the preliminary injunction and by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing as required by the Norris-La Guardia Act.
• Coastal Fuels OF Puerto RICO, Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp.
  990 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-06
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• In the Matter of: L & S Indus.
  989 F.2d 929· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-24
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's dismissal of claims against L & S Industries did not preclude the Stefans from asserting those claims in state court because there was no privity between them and the bankruptcy trustee. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's dec
• Waggoner v. Hastings
  816 F. Supp. 716· S.D. Fla.· 1993-03-23 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the Constitution's Impeachment Clause does not mandate disqualification from future office upon conviction, and the Senate has discretion in imposing such a penalty.
• Walker v. Palm Beach Commerce Ctr. Associated, Ltd.
  614 So. 2d 1097· Fla.· 1993-03-11 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  Section 194.211 applies to the sale of tax certificates as well as tax deeds, and a taxpayer seeking to enjoin the collection of taxes pending a challenge to assessed valuation must show a substantial likelihood of success in the underlying tax suit—not merely a good faith paymen
• JAK Prods. v. Wiza
  986 F.2d 1080· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-16
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was appropriate, but modified the definition of 'customers' to be those with an ongoing business relationship at the time of termination.
• Abernathy v. Walgreen Co.
  836 F. Supp. 817· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-16
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claim that disseminating confidential personnel records constituted protected activity under Title VII, and thus denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Bourne Co. v. Tower Records, Inc.
  976 F.2d 99· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-29
  The court held that a plaintiff's extensive delay in enforcing its rights rebuts the presumption of irreparable harm, even when asserting a new use of the copyrighted material.
• Local 217 v. MHM, Inc.
  976 F.2d 805· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-24
  The court held that CCELP, not MHM, was the employer who ordered the plant closing under WARN, and thus CCELP is liable.
• Longstreth v. Maynard
  961 F.2d 895· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-06
  The court held that the appeals of Longstreth and Mosier were not moot despite policy changes, and that Justus's claim regarding the sincerity of his religious beliefs presented genuine issues of material fact requiring further proceedings.
• United OF Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Solomon
  960 F.2d 31· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-30
  The court held that the state's actions did not deprive the plaintiff of a protected liberty or property interest under the Due Process Clause, and thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.