Preliminary Injunction

3,388 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,537 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C.
  2001 WL 1850837· M.D. Fla.· 2001-03-15 ·cited 353×
  The court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, agreeing with the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of most of their claims.
• Ned L. Siegel v. Lepore
  234 F.3d 1163· 11th Cir.· 2000-12-06 ·cited 352×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  Republican presidential candidates and Florida voters sought a preliminary injunction to halt manual recounts of ballots in four Florida counties following the November 2000 election, alleging violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the First Amendment. The
• The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla. v. Callaway
  489 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1974-02-15 ·cited 350×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
• Schiavo v. Schiavo
  403 F.3d 1223· 11th Cir.· 2005-03-23 ·cited 266×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order sought by Theresa Schiavo's parents to prevent removal of her feeding tube, holding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their federal
• United States v. Jefferson Cnty.
  720 F.2d 1511· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 192×
  The court held that the Birmingham Firefighters Association members' motion to intervene was untimely and dismissed their appeal, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to white male firefighters due to a failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., Inc.
  206 F.2d 738· 2d Cir.· 1953-06-30 ·cited 192×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff raised serious questions regarding a Section 7 Clayton Act violation and the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the plaintiff.
• Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
  596 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-23 ·cited 190×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious basis for relief by not showing a violation of the exclusive distributorship contract or sufficient threat of irreparable injury.
• Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc.
  749 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1984-08-31 ·cited 189×
  The court held that the standard for granting and reviewing preliminary injunctions is complex and often inconsistently applied, but requires balancing irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and public interest.
• Polaski v. Heckler
  739 F.2d 1320· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 188×
  The court adopted the parties' settlement agreement as the correct standard for evaluating subjective complaints of pain in disability benefit cases within the Eighth Circuit.
• Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc.
  640 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 179×
  The court adopts a new, third test for granting preliminary injunctions, aiming to provide clarity for district judges.
• Masser v. The London Operating Co.
  106 Fla. 474· Fla.· 1932-08-23 ·cited 175×·via Temporary Injunction
  Lessees of a Miami Beach hotel sued in equity to enforce landlord's covenant to paint and complete a solarium, and sought to restrain eviction proceedings based on their nonpayment of rent. The court dismissed the suit as lacking equity and ordered money deposited in court to be
• Polaski v. Heckler
  751 F.2d 943· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-31 ·cited 171×
  The court improperly waived the exhaustion of administrative remedies for class members alleging disabling pain who did not pursue timely appeals.
• Benda v. Grand Lodge OF the Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  584 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-28 ·cited 167×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under the LMRDA to issue a preliminary injunction against the union's trusteeship, and that the balance of hardships and the existence of serious questions on the merits justified the injunction. However, the award of attorn
• Local 53 OF the Int'l Ass'n OF Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers v. Vogler
  407 F.2d 1047· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 166×
  A temporary injunction prohibiting a union's discriminatory membership and referral practices, including affirmative action to remedy past discrimination, is permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• United States v. The City OF Miami
  664 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 162×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's approval of a consent decree designed to remedy past discrimination in the Miami Police Department. The court held that the decree did not abridge the collective bargaining rights of the police unions, as the unions failed to demo
• Swain v. Junior
  961 F.3d 1276· 11th Cir.· 2020-06-15 ·cited 160×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  Medically vulnerable pretrial detainees at a Miami-Dade jail challenged COVID-19 conditions of confinement as violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring measures including social distancing. The Eleventh Circu
• Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  429 F.2d 1197· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 158×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to stay the New York action pending the New Jersey litigation, but affirmed the temporary injunction against termination of the dealership. The court modified the injunction to limit customer contacts.
• Planned Parenthood League OF Mass. v. Bellotti
  641 F.2d 1006· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 157×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that requiring physicians to provide patients with factual information about the stage of fetal development does not unconstitutionally burden the abortion decision.
• N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State
  866 So. 2d 612· Fla.· 2003-07-10 ·cited 148×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida's Parental Notice of Abortion Act unconstitutionally infringes on a minor's right of privacy under the Florida Constitution. The Court applied its controlling precedent from In re T.W. and found that the Act imposes a significant restri
• Mrs. Margaret Burnside v. Byars
  363 F.2d 744· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-21 ·cited 142×
  The court held that the school regulation forbidding the wearing of 'freedom buttons' was an arbitrary and unreasonable infringement on students' First Amendment rights, and the denial of a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion.
• Ne. Fla. Chapter OF The Ass'n OF Gen. Contractors OF Am. v. City OF Jacksonville
  896 F.2d 1283· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-02 ·cited 140×
  An association lacks representative standing if its members have not alleged specific, actual or threatened injury sufficient for standing.
• Rush Pettway and Peter J. Wrenn v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.
  411 F.2d 998· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-22 ·cited 139×
  An employer cannot discharge an employee for making false statements in a request for reconsideration of an EEOC charge, as such statements are protected under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision.
• Culpepper v. Reynolds Metals Co.
  421 F.2d 888· 5th Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 136×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for filing a Title VII claim is tolled when an employee invokes contractual grievance remedies, and that preliminary injunctive relief is available to individual litigants under Title VII.
• LOS Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League
  634 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 135×
• The Vulcan Soc'y OF the NEW York City Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n OF the City OF NEW York
  490 F.2d 387· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-21 ·cited 133×
  The court held that the Fire Department's selection procedures, including a written examination with a discriminatory impact and a lack of a competitive physical, were insufficiently job-related to withstand constitutional attack.
• Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. OF Educ. OF State OF Ga.
  896 F.2d 507· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 132×
  The court held that the district court failed to conduct a proper de novo review of the magistrate's report and recommendation, necessitating a remand for a full trial on the merits.
• Shango (Cleve Heidelberg v. Jurich
  681 F.2d 1091· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-23 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing preliminary injunctions based on a mistaken interpretation of state regulations and federal due process law regarding prisoner transfers.
• Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd.
  604 F.2d 200· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-14 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders' uniform is a valid trademark and its use in the film "Debbie Does Dallas" constitutes infringement, dilution, and unfair competition, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Sullivan v. Murphy
  478 F.2d 938· D.C. Cir.· 1973-04-16 ·cited 130×
  The court held that the mass arrests and subsequent booking procedures during the May Day demonstrations violated constitutional rights due to the lack of probable cause evidence and proper procedures.
• E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A. v. Shaw-Ross Int'l Imports, Inc.
  756 F.2d 1525· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 127×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction by misapplying the law regarding likelihood of confusion and abandonment, and that a strong showing of infringement warranted granting the injunction.
• Hochstadt v. Worcester Found. FOR Experimental Biology
  545 F.2d 222· 1st Cir.· 1976-09-24 ·cited 127×
  The court held that an employee's conduct, even if associated with protected opposition to unlawful employment practices, can be grounds for discharge if it goes beyond reasonable opposition and becomes excessively disruptive, disloyal, or harmful to the employer's interests.
• United States v. Kerri L. Kaley
  579 F.3d 1246· 11th Cir.· 2009-08-18 ·cited 124×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the legality of asset restraints imposed pursuant to a criminal forfeiture indictment. The Kaleys, charged with conspiracy to transport stolen medical devices, money laundering, and obstr
• City OF Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co.
  634 So. 2d 750· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-03-30 ·cited 124×
  The City of Jacksonville appeals a temporary injunction granted to outdoor advertising companies challenging a charter amendment and ordinances requiring removal of their signs. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court failed to make adequate findings supporting
• Elec. Specialty Co. v. Int'l Controls Corp.
  409 F.2d 937· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-24 ·cited 121×
  The court's majority opinion erred by overturning district court findings of misleading conduct by the defendant's president, Vesco.
• Cate v. Oldham
  707 F.2d 1176· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-02 ·cited 117×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State of Florida in federal court, but granted preliminary injunctive relief against the State Attorney pending certification of state law questions to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Lawson Prods., Inc. v. Avnet, Inc.
  782 F.2d 1429· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction, affirming that preliminary injunction decisions involve significant discretion for the district judge and are reviewed with deference.
• The Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.
  690 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 116×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the irreparable injury standard and finding no facial falseness in the advertisement, thus reversing the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Magnetic Eng'g & Mfg. Co. v. Dings MFG. Co.
  178 F.2d 866· 2d Cir.· 1950-01-04 ·cited 115×
  The majority held that the transfer order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable, and that mandamus was not appropriate at this stage. The dissenting judge believed the transfer order was improper and that mandamus should have been granted.
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  549 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-11 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the withholding of federal revenue sharing funds from the City of Chicago was an improper and improvident exercise of equitable discretion.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Frank
  388 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-22 ·cited 113×·via Temporary Injunction
  An attorney may be enjoined from participating in the preparation of misleading offering circulars if the SEC establishes a likelihood of success in proving knowing violations of securities laws.
• Tally-Ho, Inc. v. Coast Cmty. Coll. Dist.
  889 F.2d 1018· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 112×
  The court held that the district court misapplied trademark law by failing to require competition for an infringement claim and by improperly expanding the senior user's geographic rights, thus reversing the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., Inc.
  526 F.2d 86· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 106×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court erred by not considering the alternative test for granting a preliminary injunction, which allows for relief if serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant's favor, even without a high probability of
• Segar v. Smith
  738 F.2d 1249· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 105×
  In a pattern and practice disparate treatment case, the defendant's rebuttal must be sufficient to convince the trier of fact that the plaintiffs have not carried their ultimate burden; otherwise, the plaintiffs will prevail without further evidence.
• Arnaldo Jimenez Fuentes v. Honorable Jaime Torres Gaztambide
  807 F.2d 236· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 104×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the position of Regional Director of CRUV is one for which political affiliation is an appropriate requirement, thus reversing the preliminary injunction.
• Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz
  670 F.2d 440· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 104×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) should be construed narrowly, limiting appellate jurisdiction to review only independently appealable orders, not ancillary ones.
• The People OF the State OF Cal. ex rel. v. The Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  766 F.2d 1319· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction that restricted shorezone repairs and construction, nor in dispensing with a bond requirement for the plaintiffs.
• Smith v. Univ. OF N.C. at Chapel Hill
  632 F.2d 316· 4th Cir.· 1980-09-30 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the jury instructions for age discrimination were not erroneous, and the findings of discrimination based on sex and religion were not clearly erroneous. The university's cross-appeal regarding attorneys' fees was also rejected.
• A. O. Smith Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  530 F.2d 515· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-11 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm in the record before the district court, warranting reversal of the preliminary injunctions.
• Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc.
  686 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 99×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a chance of success on the merits due to estoppel.
• The Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. The City OF Hollywood
  329 So. 2d 10· Fla.· 1976-01-21 ·cited 97×·via Temporary Injunction
  Hollywood Beach Hotel Company obtained a zoning change and building permit to develop a 105-acre tract, but the City of Hollywood engaged in prolonged delays and ultimately attempted to rescind the zoning and impose a restrictive density ordinance. The Florida Supreme Court held