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

• Citizens FOR A Better Env't v. City OF Park Ridge
  567 F.2d 689· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against an ordinance prohibiting door-to-door charitable solicitation, as it likely violated the First Amendment.
• Michael and Cynthia Pride v. The Cmty. Sch. Bd. OF Brooklyn
  482 F.2d 257· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their equal protection claims or irreparable harm.
• Uneeda Doll Co., Inc. v. Goldfarb Novelty Co., Inc.
  373 F.2d 851· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the copyright notice on the doll and its display package was sufficient, and that willful infringers cannot claim insufficiency of notice.
• Hoffritz v. United States
  240 F.2d 109· 9th Cir.· 1956-12-20 ·cited 18×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a hearing where a genuine issue of fact existed regarding the legality of evidence seizure, and that the appeal was not moot.
• N. Am. Prods. Corp. v. Moore
  196 F. Supp. 2d 1217· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the employer established a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the employee's material breach defense and the enforcement of the 1998 non-solicitation agreement, but not the 1991 agreement due to unresolved novation issues.
• City OF Oviedo v. Alafaya Utils., Inc.
  704 So. 2d 206· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-01-09 ·cited 17×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The City of Oviedo appealed a temporary injunction preventing it from withholding approval of sewer improvements by Alafaya Utilities until Alafaya signed a franchise agreement. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that Oviedo's conditioning of utility approvals on a unilat
• Cronin v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  919 F.2d 439· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Forest Service's decision to authorize group selection logging was permissible under the existing management plan and did not require a new environmental impact statement.
• Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., Inc.
  886 F.2d 1173· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-03 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement, as non-literal components of software can be protected expression and substantial similarity was sufficiently shown.
• Clayton v. Howard Johnson Franchise Sys., Inc.
  730 F. Supp. 1553· M.D. Fla.· 1988-07-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to a preliminary injunction against the plaintiffs' use of 'HJ' and other marks, finding a strong likelihood of confusion and irreparable harm.
• Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Summerland Cnty. Water Dist. & Does I Through XV
  767 F.2d 544· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-26 ·cited 17×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and its stay of proceedings pending state court adjudication, finding abstention appropriate. The issue of counsel disqualification was remanded for further consideration.
• Am. Bell Inc. v. Fed'n of Tel. Workers of Pa.
  736 F.2d 879· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 17×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that equity requires treating AT&T and its subsidiaries as a single enterprise in the context of a court-ordered divestiture, thus binding a successor subsidiary to a collective bargaining agreement.
• Kaisha v. Swiss Watch Int'l, Inc.
  188 F. Supp. 2d 1350· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Orkin Extermination Co., Inc. v. Tfank
  766 So. 2d 318· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-03-01 ·cited 16×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  Orkin Extermination Company appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction against a former employee, William Tfank, who allegedly violated a noncompetition agreement. The court affirmed the denial, holding that a verified complaint alone is insuffic
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNEIL-P.P.C., Inc.
  973 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the term 'PM' is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning, and that the trade dress for 'Tylenol PM' is not likely to cause consumer confusion with 'Excedrin PM'.
• Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert
  934 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the tribe's motion for a preliminary injunction, as the tribe failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Modern Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc.
  871 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 16×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a choice of law provision in a franchise agreement may be unenforceable if it violates a fundamental public policy of the state with a materially greater interest in the transaction, even if the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties.
• Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ross Bicycles, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1176· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by presuming consumer confusion from intentional copying and by deemphasizing labeling as a matter of law due to secondary meaning.
• White v. Carlucci
  862 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 16×
  A Title VII plaintiff must independently establish a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction, even in cases involving federal employees, and mere reassignment does not constitute irreparable harm.
• Hasbro, Inc. v. Lanard Toys, Ltd.
  858 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the mark "GUNG-HO" is suggestive and that there is a likelihood of confusion between Hasbro's and Lanard's products, reversing the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro
  834 F.2d 326· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while prisoners have a Fourteenth Amendment right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain an abortion, the Eighth Amendment does not mandate state provision of elective, medically unnecessary abortions.
• Schultz v. Frisby
  807 F.2d 1339· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the town's ordinance prohibiting residential picketing is a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that balances the right to privacy against free speech rights.
• Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.
  780 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the omission of copyright notice from toys manufactured and sold by Takara was curable under 17 U.S.C. § 405(a)(2), even if deliberate, and that Hasbro's subsequent registration and efforts to add notice constituted a valid cure, thus affirming the preliminary
• Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv.
  766 F.2d 715· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction, it abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction because the appellees failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the injunction was necessary to aid the arbitration process.
• Mitchell v. Cuomo
  748 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Eighth Amendment violations.
• Roberts v. VAN Buren Pub. Schs.
  731 F.2d 523· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the teachers were unlikely to suffer irreparable harm because reinstatement and backpay would be adequate remedies if they prevailed on the merits.
• Mass. Coal. OF Citizens With Disabilities v. Civil Def. Agency & Off. OF Emergency Preparedness OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  649 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• The City OF Atlanta v. The Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  636 F.2d 1084· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-13 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in rejecting the appellants' claims regarding due process, equal protection, breach of contract, impairment of contract, state constitutional violations, and non-compli
• United States v. Siemens Corp. & G. D. Searle & Co.
  621 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Siemens' potential entry into the nuclear medical equipment market.
• The F. & M. Schaefer Corp. & the F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.
  597 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-03 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the proposed acquisition of notes by a competitor likely violated antitrust laws and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the injunction.
• Pharmadyne Labs., Inc. v. Kennedy
  596 F.2d 568· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-14 ·cited 16×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that district courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin the FDA from carrying out multiple seizure actions under 21 U.S.C.A. § 334, as the seizure action itself is the exclusive forum for resolving disputes.
• Jacksonville Mar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  571 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The employer must allege and prove willingness to arbitrate and resort to contractual arbitration machinery as a prerequisite to a Boys Markets injunction.
• Blaylock v. Cheker OIL Co.
  547 F.2d 962· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in including paragraph (d) of the preliminary injunction, which went beyond restoring the status quo and was based on an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of success under the Robinson-Patman Act. Consequently, the contempt order
• Crockett v. Green
  534 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1976-03-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction that included class action certification and ratio hiring provisions to address racial discrimination in skilled craft positions.
• Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Engman
  527 F.2d 1115· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that appellants were not entitled to a stay of civil penalties because they had already waived their right to judicial review of the consent orders and were contesting the interpretation, not the validity, of those orders.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. ex rel. J. Shane Creamer v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  469 F.2d 1387· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the Commonwealth failed to make a strong showing of prevailing on the merits and suffering irreparable injury, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Croskey St. Concerned Citizens v. Romney
  459 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-25 ·cited 16×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction against the construction of a low-rent housing project.
• Winkleman v. NEW York Stock Exch.
  445 F.2d 786· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-04 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without affording the appellants an opportunity to be heard, but did not err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of success on the merits.
• Am. OIL Co. v. McMULLIN
  433 F.2d 1091· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defect in removal jurisdiction can be waived by the parties' conduct and that the injunction against pursuing unrelated liens was improperly granted.
• Yahr v. Resor
  431 F.2d 690· 4th Cir.· 1970-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the appellants failed to show a probability of success on the merits or a clear denial of constitutional rights.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Pearson
  426 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1970-05-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper based on findings that the defendant had ceased violating securities laws and had no intention to re-enter the business, the dismissal of the entire action was premature and improper.
• Yachting Promotions, Inc. v. Broward Yachts, Inc.
  792 So. 2d 660· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-08-29 ·cited 15×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  Yachting Promotions appealed from a preliminary injunction requiring it to allow Broward Marine to exhibit at the Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show. The Fourth DCA reversed, holding that Broward Marine failed to establish a likelihood of success on its constitutional access
• Duke v. Cleland
  954 F.2d 1526· 11th Cir.· 1992-02-11 ·cited 15×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the exclusion of David Duke from the Republican presidential preference primary ballot violated their First
• Associated Gen. Contractors OF Cal., Inc. v. Coal. FOR Econ. Equity
  950 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court properly denied AGCC's request for preliminary injunctive relief because AGCC failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable harm.
• Temple Univ. v. White
  941 F.2d 201· 3d Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that Pennsylvania's Medicaid payment rates were invalid because the state failed to make required findings on their reasonableness and adequacy, and affirmed the district court's injunctive relief.
• 281-300 Joint Venture v. Onion
  938 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 15×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action on prudential grounds and properly refused to enjoin the RTC's foreclosure sale, as statutory provisions and agency determinations barred such relief.
• Opticians Ass'n OF Am. v. Indep. Opticians OF Am.
  920 F.2d 187· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 15×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the trademark registrations were incontestable and the defendant failed to present a valid defense, thus the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm.
• Snook v. Tr. Co. OF Ga. Bank OF Savannah, N.A.
  909 F.2d 480· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-21 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, despite a likelihood of success on the merits.
• NEW York Pathological & X-Ray Labs., Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  523 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 15×
  The dissent argues that the INS's designation of approved facilities for alien medical examinations did not require notice and a hearing under the APA or the Fifth Amendment. The appellant had no protected property interest in continued referrals.
• Packard Instrument Co., Inc. v. ANS, Inc.
  416 F.2d 943· 2d Cir.· 1969-06-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the licensing agreement was ambiguous regarding the transferability of the patent license and that the trial court erred in refusing to consider parol evidence.
• Odebrecht Constr., Inc. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Transp.
  715 F.3d 1268· 11th Cir.· 2013-05-06 ·cited 14×
  Odebrecht Construction, a Florida corporation with no direct business operations in Cuba, challenged Florida's Cuba Amendment, which prohibits companies doing business in Cuba—or affiliated with companies doing business in Cuba—from bidding on state and local public contracts wor