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

• Interox Am. v. PPG Indus., Inc.
  736 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding breach of contract and trade secret claims.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Virgin Islands Paving, Inc.
  714 F.2d 283· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the District Court of the Virgin Islands erred by applying the traditional federal standard for preliminary injunctions instead of the statutory standard provided by the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act, which requires a prima facie showing of a viol
• Zenith Radio Corp. v. The United States
  710 F.2d 806· Fed. Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 10×·via Request For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court must reconsider Zenith's motion for a preliminary injunction, evaluating all factors, not just irreparable harm.
• SAN Francisco Real Est. Invs. v. Real Est. Inv. Tr. OF Am.
  701 F.2d 1000· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying SFREI's motion for a preliminary injunction against the by-law and reversed that decision. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of an injunction against SFREI's tender offer, finding a likelihood of success on
• Bruce Drug, Inc. v. Hollister Inc.
  688 F.2d 853· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-08 ·cited 10×
  The majority opinion erred by applying a standard bordering on de novo review rather than the 'clearly erroneous' standard for preliminary injunctions.
• Md. Undercoating Co., Inc. v. Payne
  603 F.2d 477· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to balance the potential harm to the defendant with the potential harm to the plaintiff when granting a preliminary injunction and by incorrectly concluding that the defendant's new employer was in competition with the plain
• Dakota Wholesale Liquor, Inc. v. State OF Minn.
  584 F.2d 847· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• United States v. Commonwealth OF Va. & Harold W. Burgess
  569 F.2d 1300· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order granting preliminary relief from the suspension of LEAA funding was an appealable injunction and that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) and 65(d).
• Garza v. Tex. Educ. Found., Inc.
  565 F.2d 909· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
• Small v. Kiley
  567 F.2d 163· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should not have been entered without the district court making required findings regarding likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, and without determining jurisdiction.
• The Fund FOR Animals v. Frizzell
  530 F.2d 982· D.C. Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and noting the delay in seeking relief.
• Junior Chamber OF Commerce OF Kan. City v. The Mo. State Junior Chamber OF Commerce
  508 F.2d 1031· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the federal government's substantial financing of the Jaycees' leadership development programs, which exclude women, creates a sufficient nexus to the discriminatory conduct to potentially violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Conservation Council OF N.C. v. Col. Albert C. Costanzo
  505 F.2d 498· 4th Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient injury for standing regarding recreational use of private highlands, but remanded for further hearings on potential use of submerged lands.
• The Robinswood Cmty. Club v. Volpe
  506 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-26 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that under the CEQ guidelines, an environmental impact statement was not required for the highway project because it was not practicable to halt construction, despite federal actions occurring after NEPA's effective date.
• Goldie Ann Betts v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Chicago
  466 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable probability of success on the merits of her due process or state statutory claims.
• Katz v. McAULAY
  438 F.2d 1058· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because the Board of Regents' rule prohibiting student solicitation of funds was a reasonable regulation aimed at preventing harm to the school's educational mission.
• Winfield v. Major John C. Riebel
  438 F.2d 271· 6th Cir.· 1970-12-24 ·cited 10×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to a I-S deferment and that the local board did not abuse its discretion in denying his hardship classification claim.
• Garlock, Inc. v. United Seal Inc.
  404 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Symington Wayne Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  383 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and the balance of hardships weighed against granting a preliminary injunction.
• Bieski v. E. Auto. Forwarding Co., Inc.
  354 F.2d 414· 3d Cir.· 1965-12-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because there was no imminent threat of irreparable harm.
• Wood v. Fla. Dep't of Educ.
  142 F.4th 1286· 11th Cir.· 2025-07-02 ·cited 9×
  Katie Wood, a transgender public school teacher in Florida, challenged a state law prohibiting her from using the honorific "Ms." and feminine pronouns in classroom interactions with students, claiming the restriction violated her First Amendment free speech rights. The Eleventh
• Allied Universal Corp. v. Given
  223 So. 3d 1040· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-03-15 ·cited 9×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  Allied Universal Corporation appealed the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enforce a non-compete agreement against former employee Jeffrey Given. The appellate court reversed, holding that Given failed to rebut the statutory presumption of irreparable
• Jouvence Ctr. FOR Advanced Health, LLC v. Jouvence Rejuvenation Ctrs., LLC
  14 So. 3d 1097· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-06-10 ·cited 9×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  A Florida appellate court reversed a preliminary injunction granted to JRC against JCAH and the Haskins, finding that the trial court failed to make the required factual findings and failed to establish JRC's likelihood of success on the merits regarding whether the patient files
• Florida Democratic Party v. Hood
  342 F. Supp. 2d 1073· N.D. Fla.· 2004-10-21 ·cited 9×
  Federal law mandates allowing voters to cast provisional ballots even if at the wrong polling place, but does not require counting such ballots if cast at the incorrect precinct.
• Keene Corp. v. Judge J.E. Cass
  908 F.2d 293· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-09 ·cited 9×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state court orders when the federal claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court's rulings, and that attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 cannot be awarded when a case is dismissed for lack
• Star Satellite, Inc. v. City OF Biloxi
  779 F.2d 1074· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 9×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its constitutional or state law claims regarding the zoning ordinance's time re
• Parfums Stern, Inc. v. United States Customs Serv.
  575 F. Supp. 416· S.D. Fla.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 9×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary prerequisites, including a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Whelan v. Colgan
  602 F.2d 1060· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under LMRA § 301 and did not err in granting a preliminary injunction to compel payment of welfare benefits.
• CB Fleet Co., Inc. v. Unico Holdings, Inc.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 1078· S.D. Fla.· 2007-04-25 ·cited 8×
  C.B. Fleet Company obtained a preliminary injunction against Unico Holdings for copyright infringement of its Phospho-soda bowel cleansing kit's patient instruction sheet and package design. The court found C.B. Fleet established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,
• PCA Life Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan-Dade Cnty.
  682 So. 2d 1102· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-02-01 ·cited 8×
  PCA Life Insurance Company appealed the denial of a temporary injunction and a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Dade County to enter into a health insurance contract after the county reversed its initial vote selecting PCA and instead selected Blue Cross. The court
• Topanga Press, Inc. v. City OF LOS Angeles
  989 F.2d 1524· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-22 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the City's Adult Entertainment Business Zoning Ordinance because the City may not have provided constitutionally sufficient alternative relocation s
• Castrol, Inc. v. Quaker State Corp.
  977 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against Quaker State's commercial, finding a likelihood that the claim of test-proven superiority was literally false.
• Marco v. Accent Publ'g Co., Inc.
  969 F.2d 1547· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a freelance photographer, paid by the job, using his own equipment and studio, and lacking employee benefits, was an independent contractor, not an employee, for "work for hire" purposes under the Copyright Act.
• Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co.
  971 F.2d 6· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a likelihood of success on its false advertising claim and that irreparable harm was not adequately rebutted.
• Transohio Sav. Bank v. Dir., Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  967 F.2d 598· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-12 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Factors
  The court held that FIRREA applies to thrifts with prior forbearance agreements, and that such agreements do not prevent Congress from changing capital rules. Sovereign immunity is waived for statutory and due process claims against the OTS under the APA, but not for contract cla
• Burger King Corp. v. Weaver
  798 F. Supp. 684· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the express language of the franchise agreements did not preclude a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but dismissed other counts for failure to state a claim or lack of evidence.
• Disabled Am. Veterans v. United States Dep't OF Veterans Affairs
  962 F.2d 136· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 38 U.S.C. § 3205 survives rational basis scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as it reasonably furthers legitimate governmental interests in deficit reduction, preventing remote heir inheritance, and limiting fiduciary abuse. The court also held that th
• Bellsouth Advertising & Publ'g Corp. v. Real Color Pages, Inc.
  792 F. Supp. 775· M.D. Fla.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its unfair competition and trademark infringement claims due to a likelihood of confusion caused by the defendants' insertion of their directory into the plaintiff's directories.
• Diamontiney v. Borg
  918 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction or in denying the motion for contempt, as reasonable steps were taken to ensure the inmate's access to the courts.
• Walker Chandler v. Ga. Pub. Telecomms. Comm'n
  917 F.2d 486· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exclusion of ballot-qualified Libertarian candidates from a state-sponsored debate constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
• Kellas v. Lane
  923 F.2d 492· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-18 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the inmate failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, an inadequate remedy at law, or irreparable harm, thus the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• Wallace Int'l Silversmiths, Inc. v. Godinger Silver ART Co., Inc.
  916 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even purely ornamental design features can be deemed "functionally" unprotectable under trademark law if their use is necessary for effective competition in a substantial market, thereby preventing competitors from entering that market.
• United States v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
  901 F.2d 1401· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the FDA permissibly interprets the FDCA to require separate approval for Baxter's reconstituted antibiotic drug products, even if component drugs are already approved.
• Quince Orchard Valley Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Hodel
  872 F.2d 75· 4th Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the action when balancing the harms.
• Gould v. Lambert Excavating, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1214· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 8×
• BIG Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the Anchorage Sch. Dist.
  868 F.2d 1085· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Big Country's motion for a preliminary injunction because Big Country failed to demonstrate irreparable injury.
• In re Rare Coin Galleries OF Am., Inc. v. Vinick & Young
  862 F.2d 896· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-30 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that while the trustee had standing, the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction because the balance of harm did not favor the trustee and the remedy of a bill to reach and apply was unavailable at that stage.
• Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n v. The City OF Galveston
  849 F.2d 145· 5th Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The Staggers Act does not implicitly repeal the Railway Labor Act, and a court may issue an injunction to compel bargaining under the RLA even after the ICC has approved a transaction without imposing labor protective conditions.
• Trans Meridian Trading Inc. v. Empresa Nacional de Comercializacion de Insumos
  829 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-09 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that California law prohibits enjoining payment on a letter of credit, even in cases of alleged fraud, unless there is a clear showing of intentional fraud or evil intent, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate such fraud by the beneficiary.
• N.M. Ex rel. Energy & Minerals Dep't v. U.S. Dep't OF the Interior
  820 F.2d 441· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-05 ·cited 8×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the Tribe's counterclaim without considering transfer, and that the dismissal of the complaint was proper as the Tribe was not prejudiced. The court vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and dis