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
-
A union is not entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent employer layoffs and reassignments when the employer has broad management rights under the collective bargaining agreement and the potential harm to employees from layoffs and subsequent 'rolling' does not defeat the
-
944 F.2d 597·
9th Cir.·
1991-09-13
The court held that the noncompetition covenant's geographic scope was reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
-
936 F.2d 1096·
10th Cir.·
1991-06-18
The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the movant failed to meet the heightened burden required for an injunction that alters the status quo and is mandatory in nature.
-
The court held that the district court correctly applied the Ringsby exception and did not err in refusing to vacate its prior order when the appellant intentionally mooted the appeal to avoid the preclusive effect of the judgment.
-
The court held that the railroad defendants were not employers of the union's members and thus not subject to the preliminary injunction, and that the district court's finding of alter ego or joint employer status was clearly erroneous.
-
922 F.2d 1251·
6th Cir.·
1991-01-07
The court held that the employment contracts, negotiated by FSLIC and deemed necessary to remedy the thrift's unsafe condition, were not automatically terminated by regulation, and thus the officers were entitled to severance benefits.
-
910 F.2d 296·
5th Cir.·
1990-09-06
The court held that the magistrate misapplied the standard for awarding attorney's fees to prevailing defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and erred in denying reconsideration of Rule 11 sanctions against an attorney.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction, denying his application to enjoin his deportation hearing transfer.
-
889 F.2d 524·
4th Cir.·
1989-11-17
The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, and that the dismissal of certain claims was proper, but remanded for leave to amend the Sherman Act § 2 claim.
-
The court held that the filing of an abstract of judgment against a national bank before a final judgment is prohibited by 12 U.S.C. § 91, and the United States has standing to seek an injunction to prevent such filings.
-
The court held that borrowers of FmHA guaranteed loans are not third-party beneficiaries of the lender's agreement with FmHA and thus do not have a right to appeal FmHA decisions regarding foreclosure or loan servicing.
-
874 F.2d 193·
3d Cir.·
1989-05-17
The court held that the district court erred in finding no likelihood of success on CNW's Section 14(a) claim, as disclosure of limited partners and coinvestor agreements was required.
-
871 F.2d 212·
5th Cir.·
1989-03-29
The court held that it could not determine as a matter of law whether Drexel Burnham Lambert was a 'bidder' under the Williams Act, and therefore affirmed the district court's continuation of the injunction pending further disclosures regarding Drexel's financial condition and ab
-
The court held that changed circumstances regarding HUD's search procedures warrant reconsideration of the prior ruling on disclosure, and the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
-
The district court properly exercised jurisdiction and granted a preliminary injunction against the Board's representation election order because Goethe House is immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
-
856 F.2d 85·
9th Cir.·
1988-09-01
The court held that while OAG may have serious questions regarding common law trademark rights in "Travel Planner," it failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a sharp tipping of the balance of hardships necessary for a preliminary injunction.
-
675 F. Supp. 1574·
M.D. Fla.·
1987-12-23
The court held that the potential harm to others from returning Eliana Martinez to a classroom setting outweighed the plaintiff's interests, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
The appellate court held that the district court lacked appellate jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the underlying proceeding rendered the interlocutory appeal moot, and therefore the appellate court also lacked jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the Illinois rule prohibiting targeted direct mail advertising by attorneys likely violates the First Amendment, and the district court's findings were entitled to deference.
-
800 F.2d 8·
1st Cir.·
1986-09-08
The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
-
796 F.2d 713·
4th Cir.·
1986-07-31
A base commander has broad authority to exclude civilians from his command area for non-arbitrary reasons, and a preliminary injunction should not be granted if the plaintiff has no chance of success on the merits.
-
506 F. Supp. 244·
S.D. Fla.·
1986-05-27
-
506 F. Supp. 883·
S.D. Fla.·
1986-05-21
-
790 F.2d 540·
6th Cir.·
1986-05-14
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
789 F.2d 582·
7th Cir.·
1986-04-29
The dissenting judge believes the majority misinterpreted the consent decree by focusing on its purposes rather than its plain language, and that the decree should be modified, not construed, to limit its scope.
-
The court held that federal courts cannot enjoin state court proceedings merely because they interfere with a protected federal right or invade an area preempted by federal law, and that federal courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over litigation involving property rights d
-
710 F.2d 49·
2d Cir.·
1983-06-10
The court held that the parents' and children's claims under the EHA procedural safeguards provision were premature because the children's placement had not been curtailed or eliminated, and that Jowonio's claims were too insubstantial for preliminary injunctive relief.
-
The court held that transferring pretrial detainees from a medium-security facility to a maximum-security facility, without more, does not constitute a constitutional violation, particularly when the new facility is adequately equipped and security is a legitimate governmental pu
-
689 F.2d 378·
2d Cir.·
1982-09-20
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
-
687 F.2d 620·
2d Cir.·
1982-08-18
The court held that a delay in graduation does not constitute irreparable harm, and therefore reversed the portion of the preliminary injunction requiring the Academy to graduate the plaintiff.
-
517 F. Supp. 497·
M.D. Fla.·
1981-06-30
A legal aid organization funded by the Legal Services Corporation Act cannot be compelled to represent a criminal defendant if it has determined that doing so would be inconsistent with its primary responsibility to provide civil legal assistance.
-
506 F. Supp. 528·
M.D. Fla.·
1981-01-23
A professionally validated employment test with a disparate racial impact is permissible under Title VII and the Constitution if it is job-related and not a pretext for discrimination.
-
554 F.2d 1178·
D.C. Cir.·
1977-04-07
The Federal Power Commission (FPC) was not compelled by California v. FPC to defer consideration of a merger application under the Federal Power Act pending resolution of a private antitrust suit.
-
44 Fla. Supp. 5·
Broward Cty. Cir. Ct.·
1976-03-17
-
475 F.2d 360·
D.C. Cir.·
1973-02-05
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and did not show irreparable harm.
-
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no probability of success on the merits for the plaintiff's claims regarding contract award procedures and wage compliance.
-
437 F.2d 953·
4th Cir.·
1971-02-19
The court held that the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was proper because the case was factually undeveloped and the students failed to demonstrate irreparable injury.
-
369 F.2d 369·
2d Cir.·
1966-12-06
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show probable success on the merits or irreparable injury.