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

• Louie N. Elias v. W.H. Connett
  908 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 36×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred injunctive relief for tax years 1974-1979 due to proper notice, and for 1981-1982 due to lack of sufficient grounds for equitable relief. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to state a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C.
• Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Co.
  661 F.2d 272· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that misrepresentations regarding consumer test methodology and results, which create a false impression of a product's competitive superiority, fall within the scope of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and can support a preliminary injunction.
• Rev. Dianne Fennell v. Butler
  570 F.2d 263· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court should consider alternative tests for preliminary injunctions, balancing hardships and serious questions going to the merits.
• Filippo v. United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am.
  525 F.2d 508· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because no irreparable harm was shown, and affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the cause of action alleging an unlawful trusteeship under the LMRDA, as that issue required further fact
• Stamicarbon, N.V. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  506 F.2d 532· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 36×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to compel in camera proceedings, as the contractual provisions did not clearly waive the right to a public trial and the potential for irreparable harm was speculative.
• Sanders v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  473 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 36×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the requested injunctions were overly broad and failed to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d), and the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a high
• Rivera v. Hon. Jaime Torres Gaztambide
  812 F.2d 258· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 35×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in finding the RHA Regional Director position substantially related to partisan political concerns, lacking record support for both prongs of the applicable test.
• First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
  809 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-06 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for trade dress infringement, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits.
• Blackshear Residents Org. v. Romney
  472 F.2d 1197· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-30 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to halt the funding of a low-income housing project.
• Salim Aoude v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  862 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 34×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the procedural challenges raised by the appellant were either meritless, harmless, or untimely.
• Lopez v. Heckler
  713 F.2d 1432· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Secretary of Health and Human Services failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits or that the balance of hardships tipped in her favor, and therefore denied her request for a partial stay of a preliminary injunction.
• Mass. Ass'n OF Older Americans v. Sharp
  700 F.2d 749· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-15 ·cited 34×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, and the termination of Medicaid benefits without redetermination violated federal regulations.
• Fitzgerald v. Mountain Laurel Racing, Inc.
  607 F.2d 589· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the termination of a stall agreement by a private racetrack, even with consultation from state racing officials, does not constitute state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the racetrack acted independently based on its own authority.
• Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Comm. v. The Fed. Bureau OF Investigation
  507 F.2d 1281· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in its jurisdictional findings, refusal to recuse, rejection of affidavits, or application of preliminary injunction standards.
• Spock v. David
  469 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes the jurisdictional amount issue should be remanded to the District Court for a substantive determination, as the lower court made no such finding.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker
  953 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 33×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's preliminary injunctions against the repatriation of Haitian refugees interdicted at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize judicial review of interdiction and repatria
• Sofarelli v. Pinellas Cnty.
  931 F.2d 718· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that Sofarelli stated a claim under the Fair Housing Act against the neighbors, but not against the county or sheriff. The court also held that § 1983 claims against all parties failed.
• Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Town OF Parker
  776 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court's finding of irreparable harm to the Town was clearly erroneous because the alleged economic injury was speculative and compensable by monetary damages.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.
  760 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the issuer's repurchase program, conducted in the open market at prevailing prices without fixed terms or deadlines, did not constitute a tender offer under the Williams Act, even though it was intended to thwart a third-party takeover.
• Roso-Lino Bev. Distribs., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Bottling Co. OF NEW York, Inc.
  749 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that a district court retains the power to grant a preliminary injunction even when ordering parties to arbitrate a dispute, and that the plaintiff met the standard for such an injunction.
• Sauer-Getriebe KG v. White Hydraulics, Inc.
  715 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  An arbitration clause covering "any and all disputes" governs challenges to the contract's validity, and filing suit for injunctive relief does not waive the right to arbitrate.
• DeBREMAECKER v. Short
  433 F.2d 733· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-03 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the class action but vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings due to a new ordinance.
• DOE v. Brookline Sch. Comm.
  722 F.2d 910· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Section 1415(e)(3) of the Act establishes a strong preference for maintaining the status quo during review proceedings, but does not prevent courts from exercising their equitable powers to modify interim placements or funding upon a proper showing via a preli
• Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co. Corp.
  719 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction without a sufficient demonstration of irreparable harm.
• The N. Am. Coal Corp. v. Local Union 2262
  497 F.2d 459· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was invalid due to the district court's failure to consider equitable factors and irreparable harm, and that the contempt convictions against the individual officers and the local union were invalid due to procedural errors and lack
• Associated Students v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  493 F.2d 1251· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the NCAA's 1.600 Rule, as interpreted by Official Interpretation 418, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Tampa Phosphate R.R. Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  418 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction, as federal law authorized the injunction and principles of comity did not bar it.
• Nedrick Young v. Motion Picture Ass'n OF Am., Inc.
  299 F.2d 119· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-18 ·cited 32×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction will not be set aside unless the District Court's action constitutes clear error or abuse of discretion, and the record supported the trial court's findings.
• Hohe v. Casey
  868 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-16 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  654 F.2d 204· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the defendant's television series 'The Greatest American Hero' was not substantially similar to the plaintiffs' Superman works to constitute copyright infringement, and that public confusion was unlikely for
• Shinto Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., Inc.
  572 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-31 ·cited 31×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the appellee did not waive its right to arbitration by taking depositions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
• Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 1384 & the Amalgamated Council of Greyhound Divisions, AFL-CIO v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  529 F.2d 1073· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-30 ·cited 31×
  A party seeking to maintain the status quo pending arbitration under § 301 of the LMRA need only show that their position in arbitration is not plainly without merit, and the bond for a preliminary injunction can include attorneys' fees.
• Ping v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n
  870 F.2d 1369· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the procedural scheme for collecting fair share fees, including the arbitration process, was constitutionally adequate, and thus affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Hyde Park P'rs, L.P. v. Connolly
  839 F.2d 837· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the penalty provision of the Massachusetts Takeover Bid Regulation Act likely violates the Commerce Clause, while the likelihood of success on the disclosure provision's Commerce Clause claim is uncertain.
• Cable Holdings OF Battlefield, Inc. v. Cooke
  764 F.2d 1466· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and exercised pendent jurisdiction over related summary judgment issues. The grant of partial summary judgment and dissolution of a preliminary restraint were vacated, while the
• Tech. Publ'g Co. v. Lebhar-Friedman, Inc.
  729 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-20 ·cited 30×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because 'Software News' is likely a generic term, unprotectable as a trademark, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• O'Connor v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Sch. Dist. NO. 23
  645 F.2d 578· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of her equal protection claim.
• Conservation LAW Found. OF NEW England, Inc. v. Andrus
  623 F.2d 712· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the appellants failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits regarding their claims under the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and BAST regulations.
• Bolden v. The Pa. State Police
  578 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the McDonald class's motion to intervene as untimely, and that the McDonald class was not adequately represented by the State or FOP.
• Robert W. Stark, JR., Inc. v. NEW York Stock Exch., Inc.
  466 F.2d 743· 2d Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Consolidation Coal Co. v. Disabled Miners OF Southern West Virginia
  442 F.2d 1261· 4th Cir.· 1971-05-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that preliminary injunctions must comply with procedural rules regarding notice and hearing, and that injunctions should be narrowly tailored. It also found that an association was improperly dismissed as a party.
• Bayless v. Martine
  430 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the students' suspensions were valid because they violated lawful directions from the Dean of Students regarding the time and place of their demonstration.
• Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp.
  690 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and abstention doctrines do not bar federal injunctive relief, and the Michigan Take-Over Offers Act's enforcement provisions unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.
• Cmty. Commc'ns Co., Inc. v. City OF Boulder
  660 F.2d 1370· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the City's districting ordinance for cable operators raises substantial First Amendment issues and that the district court erred in granting a broad preliminary injunction to the cable company. The court modified the injunction to preserve the status quo pendi
• DOE v. Aldo Colautti
  592 F.2d 704· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Equal Protection Clause.
• SAN Diego Comm. Against Registration & THE Draft (Card) v. The Governing Bd. OF the Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist.
  790 F.2d 1471· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the school newspapers constitute a limited public forum, and the Board's exclusion of CARD's anti-draft advertisement, while permitting military recruitment advertisements, constituted viewpoint-based discrimination violating the First Amendment.
• Nat'l Ctr. FOR Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  743 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the regulation was likely invalid because it lacked individualized determinations and was not sufficiently related to the Immigration and Nationality Act's purposes, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Allegheny Cnty. Sanitary Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (EPA)
  732 F.2d 1167· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 28×
  A state agency and its officials cannot be sued in federal court for alleged violations of state law, and the Water Pollution Control Act does not create a federal right of action against them. The Act also preempts claims against the EPA under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Wilson v. Watt
  703 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the balance of hardships tipped sharply in favor of the Alaska Natives and they had a fair chance of success on the merits regarding both the tribal contract claims and the individual recipie
• Ebel v. City OF Corona
  698 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Ebel met the standard for a preliminary injunction, as there were serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipped decidedly in her favor.