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

• Roso-Lino Bev. Distribs., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Bottling Co. OF NEW York, Inc.
  749 F.2d 124· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-19 ·cited 33×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a district court retains the power to grant a preliminary injunction even when ordering parties to arbitrate a dispute, and that the plaintiff met the standard for such an injunction.
• Sauer-Getriebe KG v. White Hydraulics, Inc.
  715 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-22 ·cited 33×
  An arbitration clause covering "any and all disputes" governs challenges to the contract's validity, and filing suit for injunctive relief does not waive the right to arbitrate.
• Libertarian Party OF Florida v. State
  710 F.2d 790· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-29 ·cited 33×
  Florida's 3% statewide petition requirement for minor political parties to access the general election ballot is constitutional and not an impermissible burden or discrimination.
• Milonas v. Williams
  691 F.2d 931· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting class certification and finding that the private school's actions were taken under color of state law for Section 1983 purposes.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Sw. Sunsites, Inc.
  665 F.2d 711· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-14 ·cited 33×
  The Federal Trade Commission Act's Section 13(b) authorizes district courts to grant ancillary equitable relief, such as asset escrows, to preserve the possibility of complete consumer redress under Section 19, even if the primary relief is pending administrative proceedings.
• ITT Rayonier Inc. v. United States
  651 F.2d 343· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 33×
  A case is moot when the underlying dispute has been settled, and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply.
• Corrigan Dispatch Co. v. CASA Guzman
  569 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to require additional security or in issuing the preliminary injunction in an interpleader action.
• Compact van Equip. Co., Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.
  566 F.2d 952· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to preserve patent claims for litigation, as it met the necessary criteria for such an extraordinary remedy.
• Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union
  531 F.2d 617· D.C. Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the district judge's conclusion that the Union did not act in good faith to end the strike, but remanded due to the lack of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• The Robert Stigwood Grp. Ltd. v. O'Reilly
  530 F.2d 1096· 2d Cir.· 1976-01-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that each separate performance of a copyrighted work constitutes a distinct infringement, and that multiple copyrights covering different aspects of a work (like individual songs within an opera) can each trigger statutory minimum damages per performance, unless th
• DeBREMAECKER v. Short
  433 F.2d 733· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-03 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the class action but vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings due to a new ordinance.
• de Vita v. Sills
  422 F.2d 1172· 3d Cir.· 1970-03-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin state proceedings and that abstention was inappropriate, but the plaintiff's claims regarding self-incrimination, prejudicial publicity, and denial of effective counsel were not grounds for i
• Dorfmann v. Boozer
  414 F.2d 1168· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-16 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted because adequate legal remedies existed and the injunction failed to balance the equities between the parties.
• Wooten v. Ohler
  303 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-06 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Sheriff's interference with peaceful picketing, based on a policy of protecting non-union shops, likely violated constitutional rights, and thus the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• N. Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co.
  114 So. 2d 347· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-08-27 ·cited 33×·via Temporary Injunction
  North Dade Water Co. and the City of North Miami Beach appealed a temporary injunction preventing them from discharging sewage effluent into lakes on Adken Land Co.'s property. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that the chancellor did not abuse discretion in granting it
• Long v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Warden, Fla. State Prison, John Does, as designee of Barry Reddish, and/or Mark S. Inch
  924 F.3d 1171· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-22 ·cited 32×
• Painewebber Inc. v. Hartmann
  921 F.2d 507· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 32×
  The court should reverse the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction because the timeliness of an arbitration demand is a question for the arbitrator, not the court.
• Aretha S. Baker v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp.
  856 F.2d 167· 11th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a motion for a preliminary injunction without an evidentiary hearing, as irreparable harm is presumed in Title VII cases and a hearing is necessary to determine all elements for injunctive relief.
• Salinger v. Random House, Inc.
  811 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the biographer's extensive quoting and close paraphrasing of unpublished letters, even if for scholarly purposes, constitutes copyright infringement and does not qualify as fair use under ordinary circumstances.
• In re G. & A. Books, Inc. v. Stern
  770 F.2d 288· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the Times Square Rehabilitation Project, while impacting adult businesses, was a content-neutral urban renewal effort serving substantial government interests and thus did not violate the First Amendm
• Klitzman v. Krut
  744 F.2d 955· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a search warrant authorizing the seizure of all client files and financial records of a law firm was overbroad and violated the Fourth Amendment, warranting a preliminary injunction for the return of the seized materials.
• Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey
  734 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction over all defendants, the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the remedy at law (money damages) was adequate.
• DOE v. Brookline Sch. Comm.
  722 F.2d 910· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 32×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Section 1415(e)(3) of the Act establishes a strong preference for maintaining the status quo during review proceedings, but does not prevent courts from exercising their equitable powers to modify interim placements or funding upon a proper showing via a preli
• Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co. Corp.
  719 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction without a sufficient demonstration of irreparable harm.
• Commonwealth OF Mass. v. Watt
  716 F.2d 946· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction based on a likely violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) due to the agency's failure to supplement its Environmental Impact Statement after significant revis
• United States v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Chicago
  717 F.2d 378· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the district court correctly interpreted the consent decree's obligation for the United States to provide available desegregation funds, its imposition of specific remedies, including a monetary amount and an escrow fund, was premature and an abuse of di
• Ambach v. Bell
  686 F.2d 974· D.C. Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Secretary's decision to use 1970 census data for fund allocation was not arbitrary or capricious, and the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Mich. Brick, Inc.
  679 F.2d 100· 6th Cir.· 1982-05-26 ·cited 32×
  A preliminary injunction cannot be granted without findings of irreparable injury to the plaintiff, even when using the 'balance of hardships' test.
• Henri and Mary Tatro v. The State OF Tex.
  625 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC) is a necessary related service under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) and that refusing to provide it violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
• Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.
  541 F.2d 365· 3d Cir.· 1976-07-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court's order approving a tender of back pay and solicitation of releases from class members is not an appealable order under either 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1).
• Mo. Portland Cement Co. v. H. K. Porter Co., Inc.
  535 F.2d 388· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request for a preliminary injunction because appellant failed to establish the prerequisites for such relief.
• The N. Am. Coal Corp. v. Local Union 2262
  497 F.2d 459· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was invalid due to the district court's failure to consider equitable factors and irreparable harm, and that the contempt convictions against the individual officers and the local union were invalid due to procedural errors and lack
• Associated Students v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  493 F.2d 1251· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the NCAA's 1.600 Rule, as interpreted by Official Interpretation 418, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Cook Cnty. Coll. Teachers Union, Local 1600, Am. Fed'n OF Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Byrd
  456 F.2d 882· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the class action and in finding that the nonrenewal of probationary faculty contracts was based on constitutionally permissible reasons, not retaliation.
• A Quaker Action Grp. v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  460 F.2d 854· D.C. Cir.· 1971-10-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as significant First Amendment issues regarding the necessity and restrictiveness of numerical limitations on demonstrations require a trial.
• Tampa Phosphate R.R. Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  418 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-01 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction, as federal law authorized the injunction and principles of comity did not bar it.
• Tatum v. Blackstock
  319 F.2d 397· 5th Cir.· 1963-06-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, deferring to the Corps of Engineers for the initial determination of whether a permit was required for construction activities on a tidal flat affecting navigable waters.
• Nedrick Young v. Motion Picture Ass'n OF Am., Inc.
  299 F.2d 119· D.C. Cir.· 1962-01-18 ·cited 32×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The denial of a preliminary injunction will not be set aside unless the District Court's action constitutes clear error or abuse of discretion, and the record supported the trial court's findings.
• Ramsburg v. Am. Inv. Co. OF Ill.
  231 F.2d 333· 7th Cir.· 1956-01-27 ·cited 32×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction is not moot, even if the merger has been completed, because a court of equity has the power to restore the status quo through a mandatory injunction.
• Rewjb GAS Invs. v. Land O' SUN Realty, Ltd.
  643 So. 2d 1107· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-08-31 ·cited 31×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a trial court has discretion to impose monetary conditions, such as requiring payment of market rent, as a condition for granting a stay of eviction proceedings pending the outcome of another lawsuit.
• Seaescape, Ltd., Inc. v. Maximum Mktg. Exposure, Inc.
  568 So. 2d 952· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-09-21 ·cited 31×·via Temporary Injunction
  SeaEscape appealed a trial court's ex parte temporary injunction requiring it to continue employment contracts with Panebianco and Maximum Marketing. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that personal service contracts are not enforceable by injunction and that Se
• Hohe v. Casey
  868 F.2d 69· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-16 ·cited 31×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs.
  849 F.2d 1446· Fed. Cir.· 1988-06-17 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in its determination of a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, or public interest.
• Ragsdale v. Turnock
  841 F.2d 1358· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 31×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority incorrectly invalidated the Illinois Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act (ASTCA) and related regulations, asserting that the state has the authority to regulate surgical procedures, including abortions, for patient safety and cos
• Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
  784 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Texaco's claims regarding the Texas bonding and lien provisions violating due process and equal protection, but lacked jurisdiction over other claims that constituted an impermissible review of the Texas state court jud
• Hollis v. Itawamba Cnty. Loans
  657 F.2d 746· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's § 1983 action for damages without a proper hearing on the merits, and that the issue of the Mississippi replevin statute's constitutionality should be considered on remand.
• Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  654 F.2d 204· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 31×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the defendant's television series 'The Greatest American Hero' was not substantially similar to the plaintiffs' Superman works to constitute copyright infringement, and that public confusion was unlikely for
• United States v. Byrd
  609 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-15 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Corps of Engineers has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities in wetlands adjacent to intrastate lakes used by interstate travelers, and that the permit requirement does not constitute an uncompensated taking without exhaustion of a
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Muller
  570 F.2d 1296· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has jurisdiction over London commodity options and that the evidence was sufficient to support a preliminary injunction freezing the defendant's assets.
• Shinto Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., Inc.
  572 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the appellee did not waive its right to arbitration by taking depositions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.