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

• Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States
  571 F. Supp. 2d 1280· S.D. Fla.· 2008-08-08 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, as the DOT's determination that the Tamiami Trail Modification Project was an environmental restoration project, not a transportat
• Dragomirecky v. Town OF Ponce Inlet
  882 So. 2d 495· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-09-17 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an injunction and stay to prevent the demolition of a house constructed in violation of building codes.
• S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc.
  968 F.2d 371· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  A franchisor's right to terminate a franchise agreement for non-payment of royalties is independent of any claims the franchisee may have against the franchisor for breach of contract, and post-termination unauthorized use of the trademark constitutes infringement.
• Ill. Council ON Long Term Care v. Bradley
  957 F.2d 305· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that delayed Medicaid payments do not violate the Boren Amendment or its implementing regulations because these provisions address payment rates and not the timeliness of payments.
• Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. OF Educ.
  910 F.2d 1172· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying a preliminary injunction, and vacated the order for remand.
• Somerset House, Inc. v. Turnock
  900 F.2d 1012· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the pre-deprivation procedures provided by the Nursing Home Care Reform Act, including notice and an opportunity to respond, were sufficient to satisfy due process requirements for issuing a conditional license and placing a facility on a list of violators. Te
• Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox
  897 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  State laws proscribing deceptive advertising are preempted by federal law when applied to the advertising of fares by interstate and international airlines.
• Medlin v. Palmer
  874 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Dallas city ordinance prohibiting amplified sound near certain facilities is a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction that does not violate First Amendment rights, vagueness, or free exercise of religion.
• Miss. Women's Med. Clinic v. McMILLAN
  866 F.2d 788· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
• Richard Horn and all others similarly situated v. City OF Chicago & Datacom Sys. Corp.
  860 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the demand notices provided constitutionally sufficient notice of the opportunity to contest parking violations, reversing the district court's finding of a due process violation.
• The State OF Alaska v. Native Vill. OF Venetie
  856 F.2d 1384· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the balance of hardships and public interest favored the appellees, and serious questions were raised regarding the appellants' tribal status and jurisdiction to tax.
• Dino Loretangeli v. Critelli
  853 F.2d 186· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the 'reasonable likelihood of success' standard for 'good cause' under LMRDA § 501(b) and in resolving complex interpretive disputes at that preliminary stage.
• David K. v. Lane
  839 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 14×
  The court's opinion strongly urges prison officials to crack down on gangs, acknowledging the difficulty in doing so under current legal constraints.
• Ray v. Sch. Dist. of DeSoto Cnty.
  666 F. Supp. 1524· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the exclusion of HIV-positive hemophiliac children from regular classrooms.
• Lindsay v. The City OF SAN Antonio
  821 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the ordinance prohibiting portable signs likely serves the city's aesthetic interests and is not substantially broader than necessary.
• Ill. Corporate Travel, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  806 F.2d 722· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 14×
  The court concurred in the judgment, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, despite potential issues with the preliminary injunction standard applied.
• Monaghan v. Deakins
  798 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Younger abstention did not require dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for damages and return of property, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Channel Home Ctrs. v. Grossman
  795 F.2d 291· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 14×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  A property owner's promise to negotiate in good faith with a prospective tenant, pursuant to a letter of intent, can be an enforceable contract if supported by consideration and sufficiently definite terms.
• Commc'ns Maint., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
  761 F.2d 1202· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that CMI's claims under the Indiana Franchise Act failed because no franchise fee was paid, its jury demand was untimely, and the termination clause was not unconscionable or subject to implied terms.
• Foltz v. U.S. News & World Report
  760 F.2d 1300· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Profit-Sharing Plan was improper and remanded for further consideration, as the Plan's distribution of assets could extinguish a potential ERISA claim, constituting irreparable injury.
• The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  747 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had raised serious questions regarding the legality of the defendants' antitrust violations and that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs.
• Mesa Petroleum Co. v. Cities Serv. Co.
  715 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 14×
  The Oklahoma Take-Over Bid Act violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because its indirect burden on interstate commerce is excessive in relation to the local interests it serves, mirroring the unconstitutional Illinois statute in Edgar v. MITE Corp.
• Sierra Club v. Hennessy
  695 F.2d 643· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a permanent injunction without properly balancing the equities and finding irreparable harm, reversing the injunction against FHWA reimbursement.
• Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Connolly
  686 F.2d 1029· 1st Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction based solely on preemption by the Williams Act, finding it not sufficiently probable that the state statute was preempted. The court remanded for consideration of the commerce clause issue.
• Louis v. Meissner
  530 F. Supp. 924· S.D. Fla.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court granted a temporary restraining order, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without it, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored the injunction.
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union v. Rollison
  615 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-11 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in granting a partial preliminary injunction, denying summary judgment, and deferring action pending administrative proceedings.
• Young v. Harris
  599 F.2d 870· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding violations of federal statutes and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Berrigan v. Sigler
  499 F.2d 514· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Parole Board's denial of a parolee's request to travel to North Vietnam was a valid exercise of its supervisory authority, considering both the parolee's status and national interest concerns.
• Goodwin v. Oswald
  462 F.2d 1237· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Legal Aid Society's extensive communication to inmates, which included assertions about union recognition and potential conflict, was not merely legal advice but constituted solicitation and a threat to prison order, justifying prison officials' refusal to
• Chris-Craft Indus., Inc. v. Bangor Punta Corp. & David W. Wallace
  426 F.2d 569· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-28 ·cited 14×
  The court affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Flight Eng'rs' Int'l Ass'n, Eal Chapter, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.
  338 F.2d 280· D.C. Cir.· 1964-10-08 ·cited 14×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
• H. E. Fletcher Co. v. Rock OF Ages Corp.
  326 F.2d 13· 2d Cir.· 1963-12-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improvidently issued because the plaintiff did not demonstrate sufficient irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
• Carroll v. Associated Musicians OF Greater NEW York and Al Manuti
  284 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1960-11-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting a temporary injunction against a welfare plan that appeared to violate Section 302(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act.
• Embassy Dairy, Inc. v. Camalier
  211 F.2d 41· D.C. Cir.· 1954-02-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the dismissal of the suit was error because the complaint stated a case for equitable relief within the District Court's jurisdiction.
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep't OF Revenue OF The State OF Wash.
  934 F.2d 1064· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by referring the entire case to a special master, as no exceptional circumstances justified such a broad delegation of judicial authority.
• Plaza Health Labs., Inc. v. Perales
  878 F.2d 577· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaza's motion for a preliminary injunction, as Plaza failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its due process and ex post facto claims.
• United States v. Dedra Estell Overton
  834 F.2d 1171· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 13×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the balance of harms weighed against granting it due to the timing.
• Deaver v. Seymour
  822 F.2d 66· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 13×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael Deaver's request for a preliminary injunction to prevent independent counsel from seeking an indictment.
• Am. Motors Sales Corp. v. Runke
  708 F.2d 202· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit enjoining state administrative proceedings and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction due to a conflict between state and federal law, but the injunction was overly br
• LeBEAU v. Spirito
  703 F.2d 639· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the adequacy of AFDC benefit reduction notices.
• S. S. Kresge Co. v. United Factory Outlet, Inc.
  598 F.2d 694· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the term 'mart' is generic and thus not protectable as a trade name, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Gonzalez v. S. Methodist Univ.
  536 F.2d 1071· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-11 ·cited 13×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for her discrimination claim and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class action status.
• Washington v. Walker
  529 F.2d 1062· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-04 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or an inadequate legal remedy, and that the balance of hardships did not favor granting the injunction.
• Michael Caruso & Co. v. Estefan Enters., Inc.
  994 F. Supp. 1454· S.D. Fla.· 1998-02-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for trademark infringement, unfair competition, or dilution claims, as consumers were unlikely to be confused and the plaintiff's mark was not sufficiently famous.
• EL Segundo Original REY DE LA Pizza Cubana, Inc. v. REY Pizza Corp.
  682 So. 2d 697· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-11-13 ·cited 12×
• Ice Cold Auto Air of Clearwater, Inc. v. Cold Air & Accessories, Inc.
  828 F. Supp. 925· M.D. Fla.· 1993-06-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's marks are likely descriptive with secondary meaning and are entitled to some protection, and that there is some similarity between the marks and products, but the analysis of likelihood of confusion is ongoing.
• Xeta, Inc. v. Atex, Inc.
  852 F.2d 1280· Fed. Cir.· 1988-07-27 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Xeta's motion for a preliminary injunction because Xeta failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its antitrust and tort claims.
• Fleet Wholesale Supply Co., Inc. v. Remington Arms Co., Inc.
  846 F.2d 1095· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a firm whose sales from a supplier constitute only 0.5% of its total business is unlikely to be considered a 'dealer' under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, and thus is not entitled to a preliminary injunction against a price increase.
• Pretty Punch Shoppettes, Inc. v. Marge Hauk
  844 F.2d 782· Fed. Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The appellate court held that the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction must be vacated and remanded because it failed to make sufficient findings of fact as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
• Sierra Club v. United States Forest Serv.
  843 F.2d 1190· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for nine timber sales, and that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction.