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

• Valley Liquors, Inc. v. Renfield Importers, Ltd.
  678 F.2d 742· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-21 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on its antitrust claims, both horizontal and vertical, and thus was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
• Glacier Park Found. v. Watt
  663 F.2d 882· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper, the Service violated regulations by negotiating with a bidder after rejecting all proposals, requiring a resolicitation.
• Carey v. Klutznick
  637 F.2d 834· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge believes the appellees have not shown the requisite showing of irreparable harm and would reverse the grant of preliminary relief.
• In re Uranium Antitrust Litig. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. RIO Algom Ltd.
  617 F.2d 1248· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 35×
  A default judgment against some joint tortfeasors cannot be entered while liability for others remains undecided, as this would improperly sever a single claim.
• Fla. Med. Ass'n, Inc. v. U. S. Dep't OF Health
  601 F.2d 199· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court lacked authority to issue an "ancillary writ of injunction" outside the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and vacated the writ.
• Columbia Plaza Corp. v. Sec. Nat'l Bank
  525 F.2d 620· D.C. Cir.· 1975-10-10 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to enjoin prosecution of a New York action, as the claims constituted a compulsory counterclaim that should be litigated in the District of Columbia.
• Morales v. Schmidt
  494 F.2d 85· 7th Cir.· 1974-03-22 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the proper standard for restricting a convicted person's correspondence is whether the restriction is reasonably and necessarily related to a justifiable purpose of imprisonment, not a compelling interest standard.
• Blackshear Residents Org. v. Romney
  472 F.2d 1197· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-30 ·cited 35×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to halt the funding of a low-income housing project.
• Morales v. Schmidt
  489 F.2d 1335· 7th Cir.· 1973-01-17 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the record did not adequately justify the prison's ad hoc decision to prohibit all communication between an inmate and his wife's sister, as it lacked support from regulations and failed to demonstrate necessity over less drastic alternatives.
• Dennis v. Vill. OF Tonka BAY
  151 F.2d 411· 8th Cir.· 1945-10-24 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the district court erred in dismissing the action.
• Chevaldina v. R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc.
  133 So. 3d 1086· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-02-05 ·cited 34×·via Temporary Injunction
  Chevaldina appeals a temporary injunction prohibiting her from posting defamatory blogs, tortiously interfering with business relationships, stalking, and trespassing. The Third District Court of Appeal vacated the injunction, holding that injunctions cannot restrain defamatory s
• Lewis v. Lewis
  689 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-03-20 ·cited 34×·via Temporary Injunction
  A husband appeals from a domestic violence injunction that awarded temporary custody of the parties' two minor children to the wife without a full evidentiary hearing. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that Florida statutes and family law rules require a full evidenti
• Salim Aoude v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  862 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the procedural challenges raised by the appellant were either meritless, harmless, or untimely.
• Darryl H. v. Coler
  801 F.2d 893· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-09 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that while DCFS physical examinations of children implicate Fourth Amendment concerns, a warrant or probable cause is not constitutionally required in this context due to the state's compelling in
• Randolph-Sheppard Vendors OF Am. v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  795 F.2d 90· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the appellants had standing, they failed to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, requiring dismissal of their claims.
• Enter. Int'l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana
  762 F.2d 464· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 34×
  A district court cannot issue a preliminary injunction against a party without first determining whether it has jurisdiction over that party, and monetary loss alone, without more, does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to justify such an injunction.
• Winterland Concessions Co. v. Trela
  735 F.2d 257· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-17 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and the dismissal of the civil rights counterclaim, but reversed the dismissal of the antitrust counterclaim.
• People Organized FOR Welfare AND Employment Rights (P.O.W.E.R.) v. Thompson
  727 F.2d 167· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-14 ·cited 34×
  An association lacks standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a state's refusal to facilitate voter registration in public offices, as this does not constitute a direct and personal injury to the association or its members.
• Lopez v. Heckler
  713 F.2d 1432· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Secretary of Health and Human Services failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits or that the balance of hardships tipped in her favor, and therefore denied her request for a partial stay of a preliminary injunction.
• Mass. Ass'n OF Older Americans v. Sharp
  700 F.2d 749· 1st Cir.· 1983-02-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, and the termination of Medicaid benefits without redetermination violated federal regulations.
• Levas AND Levas v. Vill. OF Antioch
  684 F.2d 446· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-07 ·cited 34×
  This document is an ordinance, not a court opinion with a holding.
• Goff v. Menke
  672 F.2d 702· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting class-wide equitable relief on an individual inmate's complaint when similar issues were already pending in a certified class action, and such relief should have been pursued through the class representative.
• Stern Elecs., Inc. v. Kaufman
  669 F.2d 852· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the audiovisual display of a video game, including its sights and sounds, is copyrightable as an audiovisual work, and that the defendant's use of the "SCRAMBLE" mark was in bad faith, entitling the plaintiff to injunctive relief.
• NEW Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery OF THE Bible Presbyterian Church v. NEW Jersey State Bd. OF Higher Educ.
  654 F.2d 868· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-14 ·cited 34×
  The majority's rule allowing federal plaintiffs, not parties to a state proceeding, to interfere with that proceeding is unprecedented and contrary to established precedent.
• The Atchison v. Lennen
  640 F.2d 255· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because it failed to consider the statutory purpose and applied incorrect equitable criteria, and that irreparable harm need not be shown when a statute provides for injunctive relief
• The Guinness-Harp Corp. v. JOS. Schlitz Brewing Co.
  613 F.2d 468· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the agreement's status quo provision, interpreted as part of the arbitration obligation, is enforceable by injunction to maintain the distributorship pending arbitration.
• Fitzgerald v. Mountain Laurel Racing, Inc.
  607 F.2d 589· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the termination of a stall agreement by a private racetrack, even with consultation from state racing officials, does not constitute state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the racetrack acted independently based on its own authority.
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. Andrus
  594 F.2d 872· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the enactment of the 1978 amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act rendered the appeal from the preliminary injunction moot, as the amendments addressed the deficiencies that formed the basis of the injunction.
• Berg v. Richmond Unified Sch. Dist.
  528 F.2d 1208· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-09 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the school district's maternity leave policy violated Title VII by discriminating based on sex, and that the district court had proper jurisdiction.
• Seeler v. The Trading Port, Inc.
  517 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 34×·via Temporary Injunction
  A district court should issue an interim bargaining order under § 10(j) when a union has a card majority and the employer commits egregious unfair labor practices that make a fair election impossible, to restore the pre-violation status quo.
• Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Comm. v. The Fed. Bureau OF Investigation
  507 F.2d 1281· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-07 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in its jurisdictional findings, refusal to recuse, rejection of affidavits, or application of preliminary injunction standards.
• Spock v. David
  469 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 34×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The dissenting judge believes the jurisdictional amount issue should be remanded to the District Court for a substantive determination, as the lower court made no such finding.
• Nat'l Mar. Union OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Commerce Tankers Corp.
  457 F.2d 1127· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying an injunction because the Regional Director had reasonable cause to believe the NMU's transfer clause violated Section 8(e) of the NLRA, and that the preliminary injunction enforcing the arbitration award should be vacated d
• Birdie Mae Davis v. United States
  422 F.2d 1139· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court's failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Rule 52(a), prevented meaningful appellate review of the preliminary injunction.
• Nashville I-40 Steering Comm. v. Buford Ellington
  387 F.2d 179· 6th Cir.· 1967-12-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as plaintiffs failed to show a violation of law or constitutional rights regarding highway route selection, but reversed the dismissal of the Mayor as a party defendant.
• United States v. Edwards
  333 F.2d 575· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-18 ·cited 34×
  The court should have granted an injunction to prevent further violence against Negroes attempting to register to vote.
• United States v. Ellett R. Dogan
  314 F.2d 767· 5th Cir.· 1963-01-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that evidence of prior discriminatory acts in poll tax collection should have been admitted, and that racial distinctions in poll tax collection were indeed made, warranting a preliminary injunction.
• Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co. v. Bhd. OF Locomotive Eng'rs
  266 F.2d 335· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction to protect the National Railroad Adjustment Board's jurisdiction over a minor dispute, but it erred in ordering the railroad companies to restore the status quo.
• Broward Cnty. Rubbish Contractors Ass'n v. Broward Cnty.
  112 So. 2d 898· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-04-01 ·cited 34×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Broward County Rubbish Contractors Association and its members appealed multiple interlocutory orders denying their request for an injunction against a county garbage franchise agreement with Affiliated Services, Inc. The court affirmed, holding that the Board of County Commi
• Copra v. José A. Suro
  236 F.2d 107· 1st Cir.· 1956-07-06 ·cited 34×·via Temporary Injunction
  The denial of a temporary injunction was not an improvident exercise of discretion because of doubts regarding federal jurisdiction under § 301 and the potential for the controversy to be resolved in a prior, more appropriate case.
• Fed. Glass Co. v. Loshin
  217 F.2d 936· 2d Cir.· 1954-12-03 ·cited 34×
  A denial of a motion for preliminary injunction, even if styled as a motion for summary judgment, is appealable.
• Drew Lumber Co. v. Union Inv. Co.
  66 Fla. 382· Fla.· 1913-11-25 ·cited 34×·via Temporary Injunction
  Drew Lumber Company appeals the grant of a temporary injunction restraining its interference with Union Investment Company's possession and improvement of disputed land in Suwannee County, Florida. The Court reversed the injunction, finding the bill complained primarily of acts a
• Schiavo v. Schiavo
  403 F.3d 1289· 11th Cir.· 2005-03-25 ·cited 33×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order in the Schiavo case, applying the law-of-the-case doctrine to prior holdings and addressing new claims added in amended complaints. The court rejected claims under the Americans with Disabi
• Delphia Neal v. Evans Clay Neal
  636 So. 2d 810· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-05-03 ·cited 33×·via Temporary Injunction
  In a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court's imposition of severe sanctions against the wife, including striking all her pleadings and dismissing her counterclaim with prejudice for alleged discovery non-compliance. The co
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker
  953 F.2d 1498· 11th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 33×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's preliminary injunctions against the repatriation of Haitian refugees interdicted at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize judicial review of interdiction and repatria
• Sofarelli v. Pinellas Cnty.
  931 F.2d 718· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-29 ·cited 33×
  The court held that Sofarelli stated a claim under the Fair Housing Act against the neighbors, but not against the county or sheriff. The court also held that § 1983 claims against all parties failed.
• Int'l Kennel Club OF Chicago, Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc.
  846 F.2d 1079· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-05 ·cited 33×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in granting a preliminary injunction due to unclear likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Finkelstein v. Se. Bank, N.A.
  490 So. 2d 976· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-05-07 ·cited 33×
  This case addresses whether a trial court may issue a preliminary injunction freezing assets in a private family trust prior to judgment in a Florida RICO and Anti-Fencing Act civil suit. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the injunction, holding that while such relief
• Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Town OF Parker
  776 F.2d 846· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-15 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court's finding of irreparable harm to the Town was clearly erroneous because the alleged economic injury was speculative and compensable by monetary damages.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.
  760 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the issuer's repurchase program, conducted in the open market at prevailing prices without fixed terms or deadlines, did not constitute a tender offer under the Williams Act, even though it was intended to thwart a third-party takeover.