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

• Alschuler v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  686 F.2d 472· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that neighborhood residents have standing to challenge HUD's approval of a low-income housing project based on concerns about racial and economic concentration, but not for claims solely benefiting project inhabitants.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Nat'l TEA Co.
  603 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion or err in its legal premise by denying the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction to block National Tea's acquisition of Applebaum's.
• Essex Cnty. Pres. Ass'n v. Campbell
  536 F.2d 956· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while a supplemental EIS was required due to a gubernatorial moratorium, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the identified violations were technical and no irreparable harm was demonstrated.
• HUB Grp., Inc. v. C.A. No. 2024-0471-SG Christopher Knoll
  Del. Ch.· 2024-07-18 ·cited 27×
  The Delaware Court of Chancery denied Hub Group, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-competition agreement against former employee Christopher Knoll. The court found that the non-compete agreement was overbroad in its definitions of 'Restricted Territory,'
• State of Ga. v. President of the United States
  46 F.4th 1283· 11th Cir.· 2022-08-26 ·cited 27×
  Georgia and several other states challenged the federal contractor vaccine mandate issued through Executive Order 14042, arguing the President lacked authority under the Procurement Act to require COVID-19 vaccination for employees of federal contractors. The Eleventh Circuit agr
• Hanson Tr. PLC v. ML SCM Acquisition Inc.
  781 F.2d 264· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court's findings indicated a likelihood of a breach of the duty of due care by the directors, despite the business judgment rule.
• Baldwin Metals Co., Inc. v. Donovan
  642 F.2d 768· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 27×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  Federal district courts should not exercise jurisdiction to invalidate OSHA search warrants or suppress evidence before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) has rendered a final administrative decision, as parties must exhaust administrative remedies and e
• Beech-Nut, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co.
  480 F.2d 801· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to remand and its motion for a preliminary injunction, as the products' names and packaging were sufficiently distinct to avoid consumer deception.
• CBS Broad., Inc. v. Echostar Commc'ns Corp.
  265 F.3d 1193· 11th Cir.· 2001-09-17 ·cited 26×
  EchoStar Communications Corporation appealed a preliminary injunction prohibiting it from transmitting distant network signals to "served" households under the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) and the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the
• Thornton v. Barnes
  890 F.2d 1380· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a policy-making public office, even if unpaid, is not 'property' protected by the Due Process Clause, and federal courts should not interpret state law or constitutional issues unnecessarily.
• People OF the Vill. OF Gambell v. Hodel
  774 F.2d 1414· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as it failed to give proper weight to the statutory policy protecting Native Alaskan subsistence needs and culture.
• Norlin Corp. v. Rooney
  744 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction barring Norlin from voting stock transferred to its subsidiary and ESOP, as these actions likely violated corporate law and fiduciary duties.
• The MacHlett Labs., Inc. v. Techny Indus., Inc.
  665 F.2d 795· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law, and the balance of hardships and public interest did not favor the injunction.
• Spiegel v. City OF Houston
  636 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 26×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was overly broad and reversed its issuance, remanding for revision.
• Sangmeister v. Woodard
  565 F.2d 460· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the practice of Illinois County Clerks placing their own party's candidates in the top ballot position violates the Equal Protection Clause, but vacated the district court's specific rotational remedy, remanding for the clerks to devise a constitutionally perm
• Gen. Aircraft Corp. v. Irwin S. Lampert
  556 F.2d 90· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while appellants violated Section 13(d) by failing to file a timely and accurate Schedule 13D, they should not have been enjoined from voting their legally acquired shares as no irreparable harm was shown for that specific relief.
• Roseanna Roselli v. Affleck
  508 F.2d 1277· 1st Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding no clear error of law or abuse of discretion in the lower court's determination that the state's new flat grant welfare program likely violated federal requirements by failing to accurately reflect the prior standard of need.
• Bradley v. Milliken
  433 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Section 12 of Michigan Act 48 is unconstitutional as it violates the Fourteenth Amendment by impeding the Detroit Board of Education's efforts to achieve racial balance in schools. The court also reversed the dismissal of the Governor and Attorney General as p
• Crowther v. Seaborg
  415 F.2d 437· 10th Cir.· 1969-09-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of irreparable harm.
• Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh
  812 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of confusion, and the record precluded a presumption of irreparable harm.
• Wagner Seed Co. (a subsidiary of Wagner Bros. Feed Corp.) v. Daggett
  800 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the EPA's administrative order on its merits before an enforcement action, and that Wagner's constitutional claims were without merit.
• United States v. Spilotro
  680 F.2d 612· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a pretrial restraining order under RICO is an appealable interlocutory order and that the government must present evidence at a hearing to justify its issuance, not rely solely on the indictment.
• Michael v. Costello
  525 F.2d 1239· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-15 ·cited 25×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The dissenting judge held that the district court's order was impossible for the defendant to comply with without violating Florida law, and that a three-judge court should have been convened.
• Berk v. Laird
  429 F.2d 302· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that while the claim might be justiciable, it likely presented a political question and the balance of equities did not favor a preliminary injunction.
• Popular Bank of Fla. v. Banco Popular Puerto RICO
  9 F. Supp. 2d 1347· S.D. Fla.· 1998-06-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding its trademark infringement claim, finding its mark had acquired secondary meaning.
• Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy
  957 F. Supp. 1262· S.D. Fla.· 1997-01-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate fraud or mistake to warrant relief from judgment, and their fear of statute enforcement was not actual or imminent, thus lacking standing.
• Hunt v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  872 F.2d 289· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the broadcast of a docudrama, as the plaintiff failed to meet the high burden required for a prior restraint on First Amendment rights.
• Util. Workers OF Am., Local NO. 246, AFL-CIO v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
  852 F.2d 1083· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 24×
  Section 301 of the LMRA preempts state law claims concerning drug testing when resolution substantially depends on the collective bargaining agreement, and a union must exhaust grievance procedures before a court can hear a breach of contract claim.
• Home BOX Off., Inc. v. Showtime/THE Movie Channel Inc.
  832 F.2d 1311· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted due to likely consumer confusion, the district court erred in exempting promotional materials with disclaimers and in admitting revised materials without adequate notice to the opposing party.
• N. Alaska Env't Ctr. v. Hodel
  803 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction barring mining operations until proper environmental analyses are performed, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Int'l Molders' & Allied Workers' Local Union NO. 164 v. Nelson
  799 F.2d 547· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while some provisions of the preliminary injunction were overly restrictive and exceeded Fourth Amendment particularity requirements, the injunction was generally warranted and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting it.
• Lingelbach's Bavarian Rests., Inc. v. del Bello
  467 So. 2d 476· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-03-06 ·cited 24×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  A preliminary injunction may be granted upon a motion, even without a specific prayer for injunctive relief in the complaint, provided proper notice and an evidentiary hearing are afforded.
• Students OF Cal. Sch. FOR THE Blind v. Honig
  736 F.2d 538· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring seismic safety tests or closure of the school, as the students raised serious legal questions under federal law and the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their f
• Consumers Union OF United States, Inc. v. Gen. Signal Corp. & Grey Advertising, Inc.
  724 F.2d 1044· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 24×
  A preliminary injunction should not have been issued because the moving party failed to establish either a probability of success on the merits or a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.
• Fern v. Thorp Pub. Sch.
  532 F.2d 1120· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-01 ·cited 24×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing factors for a preliminary injunction, and therefore the injunction should not be vacated.
• Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Wash. Terminal Co.
  473 F.2d 1156· D.C. Cir.· 1972-12-19 ·cited 24×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the dispute over the assignment of incidental work is a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, and therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, not the district court.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cap. Gains Research Bureau, Inc.
  306 F.2d 606· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the SEC failed to establish a violation of sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 based on the defendants' practice of purchasing securities shortly before recommending them and then selling them for a profit, as this conduct did not co
• Ballard v. Eckman & Vetsburg
  20 Fla. 661· Fla.· 1884-01-01 ·cited 24×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  In this equity case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree finding fraudulent conveyance where creditors alleged that L. M. Ballard sold his mercantile stock to his brother H. D. Ballard to defraud creditors. The court held that the evidence did not support the fraud allega
• Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger
  927 So. 2d 243· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-05-05 ·cited 23×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  VALIC appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction against a former employee who violated a nonsolicitation agreement by soliciting customers and taking confidential information to a competitor. The court reversed, holding that Florida's statutory presumption of irreparable har
• In re the Application of Michael J. Kingsley for the Return of Seized Prop.
  802 F.2d 571· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 23×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the government's seizure of the appellant's home and its contents was unlawful due to constitutional violations, and the district court improperly avoided ruling on these issues.
• Hanson Tr. PLC v. SCM Corp.
  774 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that Hanson's private purchases of SCM stock, made after terminating its tender offer, did not constitute a "tender offer" under the Williams Act because the sellers were sophisticated and not subject to the type of pressure the Act aims to prevent.
• ON/TV OF Chicago v. Julien
  763 F.2d 839· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 23×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the defendant's sale of decoder kits capable of unscrambling subscription television signals likely violated Section 605 of the Communications Act, and a preliminary injunction was appropriate.
• Frio ICE, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc.
  918 F.2d 154· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 22×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction under PACA to entertain injunctive actions by private parties to enforce payment from a statutory trust, and possess the authority to order segregation of trust assets to prevent dissipation.
• Chicago Title Ins. Agency OF LEE Cnty., Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
  560 So. 2d 296· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-04-18 ·cited 22×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  Chicago Title Insurance Agency of Lee County appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss and a preliminary mandatory injunction requiring it to cease using the word "Chicago" in its business name. The court reversed the injunction, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable in
• Portland Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Advocates FOR Life, Inc.
  859 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was not impermissibly vague and did not abridge protected First Amendment rights, though it modified the noise provisions to require substantial interference.
• Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige
  844 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting preliminary injunctions without properly considering irreparable harm to the government and the public interest, and without sufficient findings of irreparable harm to the owners and crew.
• Curtis v. Thompson
  840 F.2d 1291· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 22×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court erred by denying a preliminary injunction without addressing all five required factors, particularly given the constitutional nature of the claims.
• Lydo Enters., Inc. v. City OF LAS Vegas
  745 F.2d 1211· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the balance of hardships did not decidedly tip in favor of the appellees and they failed to present serious litigation questions regarding their First Amendment claims.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Warner Commc'ns Inc.
  742 F.2d 1156· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying an incorrect legal standard and improperly relying on Bureau of Economics memoranda, and that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted to block the proposed joint venture.
• Beltran v. Beverlee A. Myers
  677 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against California's transfer of assets rule for medical assistance eligibility, finding it likely preempted by federal law.