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

• Planned Parenthood Ass'n OF Cincinnati, Inc. v. The City OF Cincinnati & Stanley Broadnax, M.D.
  822 F.2d 1390· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-01 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the ordinance's specific disposal requirements for fetal remains unconstitutionally burden the right to abortion.
• Morton v. Beyer
  822 F.2d 364· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the employee likely demonstrated a procedural due process violation under Loudermill, he failed to show irreparable harm, thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Hamid R. Kashani v. Nelson
  793 F.2d 818· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 12×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The district court correctly dismissed the complaint because it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Director's denial of an individual asylum application, as such review would permit dilatory tactics contrary to congressional intent.
• Safir v. United States Lines Inc.
  792 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that section 810 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 does not provide an implied private right of action for restitution of subsidies paid by the government, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and modification of the injunction against futu
• City OF Tenakee Springs & Se. Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Block
  778 F.2d 1402· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while ANILCA section 708 precludes judicial review of land use designations in the Tongass Plan EIS, it does not preclude review of the site-specific Alaska Lumber and Pulp EIS regarding the Kadashan road.
• City OF Chanute v. Kan. GAS & Elec. Co.
  754 F.2d 310· 10th Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that two municipalities established the necessary elements for a preliminary injunction to compel electric power wheeling, but the third municipality did not demonstrate irreparable injury.
• Litton Sys., Inc. v. Sundstrand Corp.
  750 F.2d 952· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Litton's motion for a preliminary injunction, as Litton failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, or that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor.
• Allegra Enters., Inc. v. Fairchild
  455 So. 2d 1073· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-09-05 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
• O'Connor v. Peru State Coll.
  728 F.2d 1001· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the balance of equities did not favor the plaintiff and the harm alleged was not irreparable.
• Mattel, Inc. v. Azrak-Hamway Int'l, Inc.
  724 F.2d 357· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Mattel's request for a preliminary injunction because Mattel failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on its copyright and trademark claims, or that serious questions were raised for litigation.
• Leschniok v. Heckler
  713 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that the Secretary violated 42 U.S.C. § 425(b) by failing to consider it when terminating disability benefits for individuals in vocational rehabilitation programs. The court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Laurenzo v. Miss. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc.
  708 F.2d 1038· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·cited 12×
  A party is not considered a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 solely because they obtained an injunction pending appeal based on a substantial case and balance of equities, without a determination of the merits.
• Signode Corp. v. Weld-Loc Sys., Inc.
  700 F.2d 1108· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-23 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that Signode failed to establish irreparable harm because the appellees have sufficient financial resources to cover potential damages, and lost sales of unpatented supplies are not compensable in a patent infringement case.
• Foley v. The Ala. State BAR
  648 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the state action exemption barred the antitrust claims, but that the First Amendment claims were improperly decided on summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues.
• Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle
  641 F.2d 104· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-04 ·cited 12×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Chevron does not possess a property right in the test data submitted to the EPA, either under federal law or state law, that would prevent the agency from using such data internally for registration purposes.
• Am. Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Burlington N., Inc.
  551 F.2d 749· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction, as the train dispatchers would not suffer irreparable injury and the railroad had the power to consolidate its offices.
• Am. Home Inv. Co. v. Gontran T. Bedel
  525 F.2d 1022· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show a substantial probability of success on the merits.
• Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  501 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and that serious questions warranted further litigation.
• Ronson Corp. v. Liquifin Aktiengesellschaft
  483 F.2d 846· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, finding no reversible error in its conclusion that the plaintiff met its burden under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. PepsiCo, Inc.
  477 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction to prevent PepsiCo from exercising control over Rheingold was not warranted because the FTC failed to demonstrate that effective divestiture would be virtually impossible without such an injunction.
• Boddie v. Wyman
  434 F.2d 1207· 2d Cir.· 1970-12-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that New York's statutory scheme for public assistance grants, which provided lower monthly payments in upstate counties than in New York City without objective cost justification, violated federal law requiring uniform standards. The court affirmed the district co
• M. G. Davis & Co., Inc. v. Cohen
  369 F.2d 360· 2d Cir.· 1966-11-23 ·cited 12×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction in instituting proceedings against the appellants, and the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• LAM MAN CHI v. Bouchard
  314 F.2d 664· 3d Cir.· 1963-02-26 ·cited 12×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the designation of a deportation destination is not a final order of deportation reviewable by the district court under the 1961 Act, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd v. State Surgeon Gen.
  50 F.4th 1126· 11th Cir.· 2022-10-06 ·cited 11×
  Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings challenged a Florida statute prohibiting businesses from requiring customers to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination, arguing it violated the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the statu
• Brown v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  4 F.4th 1220· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-14 ·cited 11×
  Landlords challenged a CDC eviction moratorium issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing it exceeded the agency's statutory authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) and that they would suffer irreparable harm from insolvent tenants unable to repay unpaid rent. The Eleventh Circuit a
• Laboratorios Roldan v. Tex Int'l, Inc.
  902 F. Supp. 1555· S.D. Fla.· 1995-09-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction because it has shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on its Lanham Act claim due to the defendants' confusingly similar trade dress and trademark use.
• Concerned Parents to Save Dreher Park Ctr. v. City of W. Palm Beach
  846 F. Supp. 986· S.D. Fla.· 1994-03-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the elimination of recreational programs for individuals with disabilities violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and granted a preliminary injunction.
• Sandoz Pharms. Corp. v. Richardson-Vicks, Inc.
  902 F.2d 222· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 11×
  A Lanham Act plaintiff must prove that advertising claims are literally false or misleading to the public, not merely that they are inadequately substantiated under FDA guidelines.
• Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp.
  888 F.2d 609· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-18 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against Melville's use of a trademark logo format confusingly similar to Vision's VSW logo, affirming both the trademark infringement and trade dress claims.
• The Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie
  812 F.2d 1097· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the tribe failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits for its claims, and thus was not entitled to a preliminary injunction against the Bureau's office relocation.
• Johnson & Johnson Prods., Inc. v. DAL Int'l Trading Co.
  798 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in imposing a duty to inquire on a good faith purchaser under the UCC, and the record did not support a finding that Quality King suspected fraud.
• Joseph Scott Co. v. Scott Swimming Pools, Inc.
  764 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted due to likely confusion, its scope was overly broad in restricting the use of Joseph Jr.'s personal name, and modified the injunction to allow more latitude with a clear disclaimer.
• Arrow United Indus., Inc. v. Hugh Richards, Inc.
  678 F.2d 410· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-06 ·cited 11×
  A preliminary injunction against misbranding products as one's own is affirmed due to likely irreparable harm from unfair market entry, but an injunction against fulfilling contracts is vacated as potential lost sales are compensable by damages.
• Pollgreen v. Morris
  496 F. Supp. 1042· S.D. Fla.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 11×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that due process requires a prompt post-seizure hearing for vessels seized under immigration laws, and that the administrative procedures offered were inadequate or unavailable.
• Haddad v. Arnold
  784 F. Supp. 2d 1284· M.D. Fla.· 2010-07-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue and that preliminary injunctive relief was warranted, finding that unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the ADA.
• Helen B. Barnes, M.D. v. Moore
  970 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-17 ·cited 10×
  The Mississippi Informed Consent to Abortion Act is facially constitutional under the standard set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
• W. Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Rose ART Indus., Inc.
  910 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source of the defendant's product, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• United Offshore Co. v. S. Deepwater Pipeline Co.
  899 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 10×
  When parties agree to arbitrate disputes involving contract interpretation, they do not agree to arbitrate matters not governed by the contract itself.
• Nordin v. Nutri/System, Inc.
  897 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the district court's order enjoining arbitration and denying the motion to compel arbitration, but not the order denying the venue transfer. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no agreement to arbitrate the
• Leonard v. Floretta McKENZIE
  869 F.2d 1558· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 10×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Prospect Learning Center was an appropriate educational placement for Brandon and that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Pelfresne v. Vill. OF Williams BAY
  865 F.2d 877· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits and would not suffer irreparable harm, while deferring the Anti-Injunction Act issue for further factfinding.
• Nat'l Distrib. Co., Inc. v. James B. Beam Distilling Co. & Nat'l Distillers Prods. Co.
  845 F.2d 307· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 10×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Brand Withdrawal Act did not govern the parties' relationship after their written distribution contract expired and they proceeded on an at-will basis, thus the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Bean v. Indep. Am. Sav. Ass'n
  838 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-11 ·cited 10×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted pending appeal to prevent foreclosure, as the appellant is likely to succeed on the merits of their jurisdictional argument.
• Braden L. Albert v. Carovano
  824 F.2d 1333· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the students' claims for failure to establish state action, finding sufficient evidence to raise a factual dispute regarding whether the state coerced or significantly encouraged the college's disciplinary actions.
• Sundor Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc.
  653 F. Supp. 86· M.D. Fla.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of confusion between the parties' products and trade dress, which constitutes irreparable injury.
• Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  771 F.2d 409· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction without adequately considering the administrative record and vacated the order, remanding for an expedited hearing on the merits.
• Black United Fund OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Kean
  763 F.2d 156· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that because a new statute repealed the challenged law and substantially enlarged eligibility criteria for charitable organizations, the appellate court should not affirm the district court's preliminary injunction, as the basis for the injunction no longer existed
• Adultworld Bookstore dba Reliable Enters., Inc. v. The City OF Fresno
  758 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, as the plaintiff had not violated the ordinance before filing suit and the circumstances did not present a 'race to the courthouse' scenario. The court also found that the plaintiff had shown seri
• Bill Blass, Ltd. v. SAZ Corp. & Zion
  751 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the unauthorized sale of goods bearing the Bill Blass trademark after license expiration.
• Chilcott v. Verne ORR
  747 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the airman failed to show irreparable harm and because military discharge procedures do not violate due process or constitutional provisions against ex post facto laws.