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

• Rubinstein v. Brownell
  206 F.2d 449· D.C. Cir.· 1953-06-11 ·cited 38×
  The majority opinion holds that the Attorney General lacks the authority to arrest an alien while judicial review of a deportation order is pending, and that such an arrest would be an abuse of discretion.
• Hunter v. Atchison
  188 F.2d 294· 7th Cir.· 1951-03-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to consider evidence regarding whether the plaintiffs had actual notice of the Adjustment Board proceedings or had authorized representation, as such notice or authorization would estop them from claiming the award was void
• Gillis v. State Live Stock Sanitary Bd.
  94 Fla. 890· Fla.· 1927-11-08 ·cited 38×·via Temporary Injunction
  A Florida cattle owner challenged the State Live Stock Sanitary Board's authority to dip his tick-free cow and calf, arguing they fell within a statutory exception for animals kept in tick-free enclosures. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of a temporary injunct
• Foreclosure Freesearch, Inc. v. Sullivan
  12 So. 3d 771· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-04-29 ·cited 37×·via Temporary Injunction
  Foreclosure FreeSearch appealed a trial court's temporary injunction blocking a reverse stock split and appraisal process affecting minority shareholders Sullivan and Muttillo. The appellate court reversed, holding that the appraisal process constitutes an adequate remedy at law
• Ill. Psychological Ass'n v. Falk
  818 F.2d 1337· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-12 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction against state regulation, and thus the denial of the injunction was proper.
• Religious Tech. Ctr. & Church of Scientology Int'l, Inc. v. Wollersheim
  796 F.2d 1076· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 37×
  Injunctive relief is not available to a private plaintiff in a civil RICO action, and sacred scriptures do not meet the definition of a trade secret under California law.
• Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Internorth, Inc.
  634 F.2d 690· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-14 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court improperly allocated the burden of proof regarding the business judgment rule when assessing the merits of InterNorth's counterclaim for a preliminary injunction.
• Treadway Cos., Inc. v. Care Corp.
  638 F.2d 357· 2d Cir.· 1980-08-12 ·cited 37×
• Ealy v. Talmadge Littlejohn
  569 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 37×
• L. Batlin & SON, Inc. v. Snyder
  536 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 37×
  The court should reverse the district court's finding that the plastic bank embodied only trivial variations from a public domain work, as minimal variations are sufficient for copyrightability.
• Exhibitors Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp.
  441 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-30 ·cited 37×
• Dist. 50 v. Int'l Union
  412 F.2d 165· D.C. Cir.· 1969-04-10 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a persuasive case for irreparable harm or a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.
• Meredith v. Fair
  298 F.2d 696· 5th Cir.· 1962-01-12 ·cited 37×
• Webb v. Hill
  75 So. 2d 596· Fla.· 1954-10-29 ·cited 37×·via Temporary Injunction
  Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's grant of a temporary injunction preventing the State Road Department from accepting bids for construction of a state road section in Wakulla County. The Court held that the road was properly designated as part of the state highway sy
• Vital Pharms., Inc. v. Alfieri
  23 F.4th 1282· 11th Cir.· 2022-01-20 ·cited 36×
  Vital Pharmaceuticals sued four former employees and their new employer to enforce restrictive covenants from employment agreements, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent them from working for a competitor and disclosing confidential information. The Eleventh Circuit vacate
• United States v. Askins & Miller Orthopaedics, P.A.
  924 F.3d 1348· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-23 ·cited 36×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the IRS may be entitled to a preliminary injunction against a serial tax delinquent, as a suit for money damages is not necessarily an adequate remedy at law when the taxpayer is judgment-proof and has a history of evading payment.
• Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int'l Corp.
  263 F.3d 1297· 11th Cir.· 2001-08-28 ·cited 36×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction against PLD for trademark infringement. The court held that the unauthorized resale of a trademarked product that is materially different from the genuine product constitutes infringement,
• Louie N. Elias v. W.H. Connett
  908 F.2d 521· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 36×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred injunctive relief for tax years 1974-1979 due to proper notice, and for 1981-1982 due to lack of sufficient grounds for equitable relief. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to state a quiet title action under 28 U.S.C.
• State OF Ala. v. The United States Env't Prot. Agency
  871 F.2d 1548· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that challenges to EPA's remedial actions under CERCLA are barred by § 113(h) until the action is completed, and that plaintiffs lacked standing for their constitutional claims.
• Michenfelder v. Sumner
  860 F.2d 328· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the prison's strip search policy and taser use policy were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and did not violate the Fourth or Eighth Amendments. Procedural claims were also found meritless.
• Love v. Thomas
  858 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-29 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to review an emergency suspension order of a pesticide registration, even when no expedited hearing was requested by the registrant.
• Hunt v. Bankers Tr. Co.
  799 F.2d 1060· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, denied the request for a stay, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, and directed the transfer of bankruptcy cases to the Northern District of Texas.
• Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  765 F.2d 815· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that Microdata is an indispensable party whose joinder would destroy diversity, requiring remand to state court, and that a federal question counterclaim does not establish removal jurisdiction.
• Am. CAN Co. v. Ishwar Mansukhani
  742 F.2d 314· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the temporary restraining order was improperly issued ex parte because there was no valid reason for proceeding without notice and it failed to comply with Rule 65(b)'s procedural requirements. The preliminary injunction was also deemed erroneously granted due
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc.
  725 F.2d 440· 7th Cir.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 36×
  An order denying a stay is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the underlying suit is a mixed law-equity action where equitable relief is more than merely incidental to legal relief.
• Mental Health Ass'n OF Minn. v. Heckler
  720 F.2d 965· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a judicial waiver of the exhaustion requirement for Social Security disability claims was appropriate due to potential irreparable harm and that the preliminary injunction was largely proper, though modified to be more precise.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Bd. OF Trade OF the City OF Chicago
  701 F.2d 653· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-01 ·cited 36×
  A district court is not required to vacate a decision on preliminary relief when the case becomes moot after the decision but before final judgment, especially if the findings received significant judicial scrutiny and appellate review.
• Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Co.
  661 F.2d 272· 2d Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that misrepresentations regarding consumer test methodology and results, which create a false impression of a product's competitive superiority, fall within the scope of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and can support a preliminary injunction.
• S-1 v. Turlington
  635 F.2d 342· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 36×
  An expulsion of a handicapped student constitutes a change in educational placement, triggering procedural protections under the EHA and Section 504, and the burden is on school officials to determine if misconduct is a manifestation of the handicap.
• Ives Labs., Inc. v. Darby Drug Co., Inc.
  601 F.2d 631· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding it within the district court's discretion, despite the interesting questions raised regarding trademark and unfair competition law in the context of expired patents and drug imitation.
• Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Costle
  572 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1978-04-05 ·cited 36×
  The majority opinion reversed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding the EPA Administrator's duty discretionary. Judge Hauk dissents, arguing the duty was nondiscretionary and the injunction proper.
• Rev. Dianne Fennell v. Butler
  570 F.2d 263· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-06 ·cited 36×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court should consider alternative tests for preliminary injunctions, balancing hardships and serious questions going to the merits.
• Filippo v. United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am.
  525 F.2d 508· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-28 ·cited 36×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because no irreparable harm was shown, and affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the cause of action alleging an unlawful trusteeship under the LMRDA, as that issue required further fact
• Stamicarbon, N.V. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  506 F.2d 532· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to compel in camera proceedings, as the contractual provisions did not clearly waive the right to a public trial and the potential for irreparable harm was speculative.
• Faro v. NEW York Univ.
  502 F.2d 1229· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-23 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and the university's actions were not motivated by sex discrimination.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Spectrum, Ltd.
  489 F.2d 535· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing when material factual disputes existed regarding the defendant's knowledge of a scheme to distribute unregistered securities.
• Sanders v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  473 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 36×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the requested injunctions were overly broad and failed to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d), and the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a high
• Meredith v. Fair
  306 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-27 ·cited 36×
  A court has inherent power to review and vacate a stay order issued by a single judge, even if that judge was not part of the deciding panel, especially when the mandate has already issued.
• Ideal TOY Corp. v. Sayco Doll Corp.
  302 F.2d 623· 2d Cir.· 1962-04-03 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed both the grant of a preliminary injunction and the denial of a motion to vacate it, finding no abuse of discretion or error in the lower courts' rulings.
• Mary Phillips Rushton as sole Gen. P'r of The Rushton Co. v. Vitale
  218 F.2d 434· 2d Cir.· 1955-01-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a prima facie case of copyright infringement entitles plaintiffs to a preliminary injunction without a detailed showing of irreparable harm.
• Carter v. United States
  135 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1943-04-12 ·cited 36×·via Temporary Injunction
  The dissenting judge believes the conviction for criminal contempt cannot stand because the order disobeyed was void for lack of jurisdiction, and thus not a lawful order.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Taylor
  56 Fla. 788· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 36×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a temporary mandatory injunction requiring a railroad company to construct a spur track and depot at Rockledge and operate passenger trains there. The Court held that mandatory injunctions requiring positive acts cannot be granted before final h
• Swain v. Junior
  958 F.3d 1081· 11th Cir.· 2020-05-05 ·cited 35×
  The court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal, finding the defendants were likely to succeed on appeal due to probable errors by the district court.
• In re Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo v. Schiavo
  792 So. 2d 551· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-07-11 ·cited 35×·via Temporary Injunction
  This consolidated appeal addresses whether parents of an incapacitated woman in a persistent vegetative state can challenge a guardianship court order authorizing discontinuation of life-prolonging procedures. The court holds that interested parties have standing to seek relief u
• Snibbe v. The Napoleonic Soc'y OF Am., Inc.
  682 So. 2d 568· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-09-25 ·cited 35×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that personal jurisdiction was lacking over nonresident officers acting within their corporate capacity, and that the injunctions lacked sufficient factual findings to support their issuance.
• Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Burford
  835 F.2d 305· D.C. Cir.· 1987-12-11 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting the exhaustion defense and that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Rivera v. Hon. Jaime Torres Gaztambide
  812 F.2d 258· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in finding the RHA Regional Director position substantially related to partisan political concerns, lacking record support for both prongs of the applicable test.
• First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
  809 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-06 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for trade dress infringement, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits.
• In re Application to Adjudge the Providence Journal Co. & its Executive Editor
  820 F.2d 1342· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 35×
  A party subject to an order that constitutes a transparently invalid prior restraint on pure speech may challenge the order by violating it, and such an order cannot form the basis for a contempt citation.
• United States v. Price
  688 F.2d 204· 3d Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion, but clarified that equitable relief, including monetary expenditures for studies, is permissible under RCRA and SDWA.