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

• Manning v. Trs. OF Tufts Coll.
  613 F.2d 1200· 1st Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction and the denial of a motion to vacate judgment, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Seaboard World Airlines, Inc. v. Tiger Int'l, Inc.
  600 F.2d 355· 2d Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that the majority erred in finding no violation of Section 14(e) of the Williams Act, asserting that Tiger's tender offer was materially misleading by downplaying the liquidation value of Seaboard's stock.
• Airco, Inc. v. Energy Research & Dev. Admin.
  528 F.2d 1294· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the agency's decision to reopen negotiations had a reasonable basis and was entitled to judicial deference, and that the successful bidder's proposal was responsive.
• Tele-Controls, Inc. v. Ford Indus., Inc.
  388 F.2d 48· 7th Cir.· 1967-12-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Rhodes Pharmacal Co., Inc.
  191 F.2d 744· 7th Cir.· 1951-07-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action and denying the injunction based on debatable questions when the standard for a preliminary injunction under § 13(a) requires only reasonable cause to believe violations occurred.
• Sudomir v. McMAHON
  767 F.2d 1456· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 21×
  The Secretary's interpretation of 'permanently residing in the United States under color of law' is unreasonable as applied to asylum applicants awaiting a final decision, and these plaintiffs are eligible for benefits.
• Town OF Burlington & the Sch. Comm. of the Town of Burlington v. The Dep't OF Educ. OF the Commonwealth OF Mass. & John Doe
  655 F.2d 428· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that state law cannot be applied when federal law review is sought, and that the district court erred in ordering reimbursement for past educational expenses under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3).
• State v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  19 F.4th 1271· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-06 ·cited 20×
  Florida challenged a federal interim rule mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers at Medicare and Medicaid facilities, arguing the rule exceeded the Secretary's statutory authority, violated notice-and-comment procedures, and was arbitrary and capricious. The Eleve
• Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.
  148 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 2001-05-24 ·cited 20×
  The court denied Del Monte's motion for a preliminary injunction because Del Monte failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under either the threatened or inevitable disclosure theories of trade secret misappropriation.
• Sierra Club v. Marsh
  872 F.2d 497· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-31 ·cited 20×
  The Supreme Court's decision in Village of Gambell did not overrule or significantly modify the First Circuit's prior holding in Watt regarding the type of harm cognizable under NEPA for preliminary injunction purposes.
• Consol. Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A.
  871 F.2d 252· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 20×
  A takeover target must demonstrate antitrust injury to have standing to challenge a takeover under Section 16 of the Clayton Act.
• The Chicago Bd. OF Realtors, Inc. v. The City OF Chicago
  819 F.2d 732· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their constitutional challenges to the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.
• United States v. Lulac
  793 F.2d 636· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction without adequately assessing the validity of the PPST and its relationship to the State's legitimate interests, and vacated the injunction.
• Dynamics Corp. OF Am. v. CTS Corp.
  794 F.2d 250· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court correctly granted a preliminary injunction against CTS's poison pill, finding it likely violated Indiana law by not being plausibly related to shareholder wealth maximization and was adopted without adequate investigation.
• Raymon and Joann Lynch v. Rank
  747 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Pickle amendment requires states to apply a 'but for' test to determine eligibility, meaning individuals are eligible for Medicaid if they would qualify for SSI but for OASDI cost-of-living increases, regardless of other reasons for past SSI ineligibility.
• Arthur Guinness & Sons, PLC v. Sterling Publ'g Co., Inc.
  732 F.2d 1095· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Guinness's motion for a preliminary injunction because Guinness failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Mass. Ass'n FOR Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. King
  668 F.2d 602· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 20×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the consent decrees did not override the charge-for-care statute, finding it unlikely that plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their claim that the statute was unlawful.
• White Mountain Apache Tribe v. State OF Ariz.
  649 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 20×
  State regulation of non-Indians hunting/fishing on reservations is permissible if it serves a valid conservation purpose and does not unduly interfere with federal or tribal interests, particularly when the state has a strong regulatory interest.
• City OF Anaheim v. Kleppe
  590 F.2d 285· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the cities failed to establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits, as prior cases relied upon were inapposite due to the absence of competing offers at the ti
• Knights OF the KU Klux Klan v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd.
  578 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-25 ·cited 20×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that a state agency cannot condition the off-time use of public school facilities on the political or ideological views of the applicant, as this violates the First Amendment. A temporary injunction was granted.
• In re Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Simon
  508 F.2d 1056· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction to issue an injunction compelling a telephone company to continue service to a debtor, even with pre-bankruptcy debts, to preserve the debtor's business assets.
• McGUIRE Shaft & Tunnel Corp. v. Local Union NO. 1791
  475 F.2d 1209· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1973-02-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that preliminary injunctions were authorized under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not prohibit such injunctions against labor unions in this context.
• The Cong. OF Racial Equal. v. Douglas
  318 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was an unconstitutional abridgement of First Amendment rights and an abuse of discretion because there was no evidence that CORE intended to foment violence or that a clear and present danger existed.
• Woods v. Benson Hotel Corp.
  177 F.2d 543· 8th Cir.· 1949-11-11 ·cited 20×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 did not require all listed services to be furnished for decontrol, but rather that services customary in the community be made available.
• Salomon Cohen v. L'Engle
  24 Fla. 542· Fla.· 1888-06-01 ·cited 20×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal in an equity case, holding that while it may possess inherent power to issue injunctions in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, such power should be exercised only when indispensable to protect a
• Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea
  129 So. 3d 1196· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-01-17 ·cited 19×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  Florida appellate court reversed a state court's temporary injunction that prohibited Gawker Media from publishing a report and video excerpts about professional wrestler Hulk Hogan's extramarital affair, holding that the injunction constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cherif
  933 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the misappropriation theory applies to Rule 10b-5 violations, and a former employee's breach of a continuing duty to protect confidential information constitutes fraud. The court also found that subject matter jurisdiction does not extend to a non-party like S
• Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger
  888 F.2d 969· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction, even though it applied a higher fiduciary standard than required, because the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Silas Alexander v. Chicago Park Dist.
  709 F.2d 463· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting such relief at this preliminary stage.
• Pratte v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  683 F.2d 1038· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 19×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the plaintiff's reliance on the government's job offer was unjustified, thus failing to establish a claim for equitable estoppel.
• Frejlach v. Butler
  573 F.2d 1026· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-10 ·cited 19×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Int'l Res., Inc. v. NEW York Life Ins. Co.
  950 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the fourth state law claim regarding conversion rights under Kentucky law is pre-empted by ERISA, and plaintiffs must pursue their claims under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions.
• State OF Cal. v. Am. Stores Co.
  872 F.2d 837· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that constituted impermissible indirect divestiture under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, but affirmed the district court's finding of a likelihood of success on the merits and irrepar
• McNEILAB, Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  848 F.2d 34· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting survey evidence and presuming irreparable harm in a false comparative advertising case under the Lanham Act.
• Baja Contractors, Inc. v. The City OF Chicago
  830 F.2d 667· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because Baja did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, specifically lacking a protected property interest in MBE certification as a concrete supplier.
• The Parents' Ass'n OF P.S. 16 v. Quinones
  803 F.2d 1235· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as the City's plan to accommodate Hasidic students likely violated the Establishment Clause's 'primary effect' test.
• Patchogue Nursing Ctr. v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  797 F.2d 1137· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 18×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a skilled nursing facility failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions for litigation to justify a preliminary injunction against the imposition of intermediate sanctions for noncompliance with Medicare participation requir
• Cal. Cooler, Inc. v. Loretto Winery, Ltd.
  774 F.2d 1451· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 18×
  Registration on the supplemental register does not estop a plaintiff from proving secondary meaning in subsequent litigation, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Kaplan v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City Sch. Dist. OF the City OF NEW York
  759 F.2d 256· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly denied appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction because they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• O'Brien v. Town OF Caledonia
  748 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1984-11-08 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm due to the chilling effect on his First Amendment rights.
• Gen. Leaseways, Inc. v. Nat'l Truck Leasing Ass'n
  744 F.2d 588· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Association's territorial restrictions constitute a horizontal market division that is illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction.
• Godinez v. Lane
  733 F.2d 1250· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 18×
  The court reversed the district court's order modifying the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary factors for its issuance.
• Maram v. Universidad Interamericana de Puerto RICO, Inc.
  722 F.2d 953· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the National Labor Relations Board's application for a preliminary injunction, finding reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred and that an injunction was just and proper.
• Islandia Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Vermut
  438 So. 2d 89· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-09-07 ·cited 18×
  Florida appellate court reversed a preliminary injunction preventing a condominium association from repainting a unit's exterior, holding that the trial court failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or inadequate remedy at law required for such extraordinary relief.
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54 v. Danziger
  709 F.2d 815· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 18×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the cross-appeals and vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction, remanding for further proceedings.
• Martin v. Orrin L. Helstad
  699 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  A potential law school student who procures acceptance through fraudulent misrepresentations does not possess a constitutionally protected property interest in attending the university.
• Esposito v. Horning
  416 So. 2d 896· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-07-14 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  Esposito appealed from orders granting and maintaining a preliminary injunction requiring a boat to be held at a boatyard in a dispute with Horning over ownership and a claimed repair contract. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the preliminary injunction
• Menominee Rubber Co. v. Gould, Inc.
  657 F.2d 164· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-21 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding no clear abuse of discretion by the district court in preserving the status quo pending trial.
• Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., Inc. v. Costle
  632 F.2d 1014· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the appellees failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly concerning the complex Fifth Amendment taking claims and the availability of a Tucker Act remedy.
• Bryan v. Koch
  627 F.2d 612· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a recipient of federal funds must demonstrate a rational decision-making process when a decision has a disproportionate racial impact under Title VI.