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

• Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 1384 & the Amalgamated Council of Greyhound Divisions, AFL-CIO v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  529 F.2d 1073· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-30 ·cited 31×
  A party seeking to maintain the status quo pending arbitration under § 301 of the LMRA need only show that their position in arbitration is not plainly without merit, and the bond for a preliminary injunction can include attorneys' fees.
• Walker F. Rucker v. Willis
  484 F.2d 158· 4th Cir.· 1973-08-23 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the administrative record should be supplemented to determine if the Corps of Engineers properly assessed the need for an environmental impact statement.
• Cousins v. Wigoda
  463 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 31×
  The court held that vacating a preliminary injunction against a state court action seeking to suppress First Amendment rights was an abuse of discretion.
• Wash. Capitols Basketball Club, Inc. v. Barry
  419 F.2d 472· 9th Cir.· 1969-11-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending a final determination of the case.
• Concord Fabrics, Inc. v. Marcus Bros. Textile Corp.
  409 F.2d 1315· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-12 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the allegedly infringing design was substantially similar to the copyrighted design.
• Detroit Football Co. v. Robinson
  283 F.2d 657· 5th Cir.· 1960-11-14 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction will be affirmed if the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
• Orval E. Faubus v. United States (Amicus Curiæ
  254 F.2d 797· 8th Cir.· 1958-04-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the affidavit of prejudice was untimely and insufficient, the district court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction, and a three-judge court was not required. The Governor's discretion in using the National Guard is not absolute and can be questioned when it
• Bowles v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  143 F.2d 38· 7th Cir.· 1944-05-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted and was not broader than warranted, given the defendant's systemic non-compliance with price regulations.
• Fla. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n v. Priam Rosenberg
  117 So. 3d 825· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-06-26 ·cited 30×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting a temporary injunction but did err in failing to set a bond.
• Christine Thomas, M.D. v. Osler Med., Inc.
  963 So. 2d 896· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-08-24 ·cited 30×·via Temporary Injunction
  Dr. Christine Thomas appeals the denial of her motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that barred her from practicing medicine within a 10-mile radius of her former employer's office for two years, enforcing a covenant not to compete. The court affirmed the injunction, holding
• Ping v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n
  870 F.2d 1369· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-07 ·cited 30×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the procedural scheme for collecting fair share fees, including the arbitration process, was constitutionally adequate, and thus affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Hyde Park P'rs, L.P. v. Connolly
  839 F.2d 837· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the penalty provision of the Massachusetts Takeover Bid Regulation Act likely violates the Commerce Clause, while the likelihood of success on the disclosure provision's Commerce Clause claim is uncertain.
• Robi v. Five Platters, Inc.
  838 F.2d 318· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in reversing the New York judgment's preclusive effect by applying the California judgment's issue preclusion, and affirmed the district court's application of claim preclusion to the Robi cases.
• Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. v. Lenox Labs., Inc.
  815 F.2d 500· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction based on an insufficient showing of probable success on the merits and inadequate consideration of the public interest.
• Marvin Hayes Lines, Inc. v. Central States
  814 F.2d 297· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the chosen withdrawal date was erroneous, the denial of interim payments was improper, and the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
• United States v. Lawrence Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  799 F.2d 1031· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the 1974 order did not declare the school system unitary and that the school board had failed to comply with prior desegregation orders regarding faculty assignment and bus routes.
• Stieberger v. Bowen
  801 F.2d 29· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-08 ·cited 30×
  The preliminary injunction against the Secretary of Health and Human Services is vacated because a subsequent, less far-reaching remedy ordered in a related case (Schisler v. Heckler) addresses the core issues concerning the treating physician rule.
• A.J. Canfield Co. v. Vess Beverages, Inc.
  796 F.2d 903· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-15 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the granting of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff had a better than negligible chance of establishing trademark rights in 'CHOCOLATE FUDGE' for diet soda and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction.
• Orlando v. Heckler
  776 F.2d 209· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the administrative law judge's decision denying Social Security benefits was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ did not err in evaluating the claimant's physical and mental impairments or his ability to return to past relevant work.
• In re Baldwin-United Corp. (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Ins. Litigation) Alaska
  770 F.2d 328· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction under the All-Writs Act to prevent state actions that threatened to impair its jurisdiction over a complex, advanced securities class action and its settlement proceedings.
• The People OF the State OF Cal. ex rel. John VAN DE Kamp v. The Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  766 F.2d 1308· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) for approving projects without complying with the Compact's requirements for environmental threshold findings.
• Cable Holdings OF Battlefield, Inc. v. Cooke
  764 F.2d 1466· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and exercised pendent jurisdiction over related summary judgment issues. The grant of partial summary judgment and dissolution of a preliminary restraint were vacated, while the
• Tech. Publ'g Co. v. Lebhar-Friedman, Inc.
  729 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because 'Software News' is likely a generic term, unprotectable as a trademark, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Golden State Transit Corp. v. City OF LOS Angeles
  726 F.2d 1430· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 30×
  A city is immune from antitrust liability under the Parker doctrine when it acts pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition with regulation, even if the state does not actively supervise the city's actions.
• J-R Distribs., Inc. v. Eikenberry
  725 F.2d 482· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 30×
  The majority opinion is flawed in holding that the use of the word 'lust' in defining prurient interest renders a statute facially overbroad under the First Amendment.
• Shaffer v. Globe Prot., Inc.
  721 F.2d 1121· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, and an appeal of that denial does not bring up for review prior interlocutory orders dismissing a conspiracy claim and denying class certification.
• Wesley-Jessen Div. OF Schering Corp. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.
  698 F.2d 862· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-19 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in its consideration of the factors for injunctive relief.
• dos Santos v. Columbus-Cuneo-Cabrini Med. Ctr.
  684 F.2d 1346· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a favorable balance of hardships, or a lack of adverse impact on the public interest.
• Knudsen Corp. v. Nev. State Dairy Comm'n
  676 F.2d 374· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying abstention and granting a preliminary injunction against Nevada's dairy price filing scheme, finding a high probability of success on the merits of the antitrust claims.
• O'Connor v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Sch. Dist. NO. 23
  645 F.2d 578· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 30×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of her equal protection claim.
• Porter v. Brock Adams
  639 F.2d 273· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 30×
  A charge of reprisal filed by a federal employee does not provide a path to judicial review under Title VII; however, the district court must rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Harris
  625 F.2d 1328· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a preliminary injunction against the operation of new HEW regulations.
• Conservation LAW Found. OF NEW England, Inc. v. Andrus
  623 F.2d 712· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 30×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the appellants failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits regarding their claims under the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and BAST regulations.
• Kolz v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Chicago
  576 F.2d 747· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-01 ·cited 30×
  The district court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because the teachers failed to establish a constitutional right to a teaching position in a particular location.
• Bolden v. The Pa. State Police
  578 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the McDonald class's motion to intervene as untimely, and that the McDonald class was not adequately represented by the State or FOP.
• Melvyn Grimard v. Carlston
  567 F.2d 1171· 1st Cir.· 1978-01-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction because the plaintiff was unlikely to prevail on the merits of his due process claim.
• The Med. Soc'y OF the State OF NEW York v. Toia
  560 F.2d 535· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting interim injunctive relief because the plaintiffs failed to establish a probability of success on the merits.
• Regents OF the Univ. OF Minn. v. The Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  560 F.2d 352· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the University had not shown a strong probability of success on the merits.
• Cedar Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  560 F.2d 1153· 4th Cir.· 1977-07-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an indefinite continuance of a preliminary injunction hearing is appealable as a refusal of an injunction, and that dismissal of a complaint with prejudice is a final, appealable order. The court also found that the cases were not moot despite the strike endin
• Save OUR Wetlands v. United States Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  549 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the equitable doctrine of laches barred the plaintiffs' environmental claims because of their unreasonable and inexcusable delay, which resulted in undue prejudice to the defendants due to substantial investment and project completion.
• Williams v. Alioto
  549 F.2d 136· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-25 ·cited 30×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the underlying criminal investigation has concluded with convictions, and the challenged police practices are unlikely to recur and affect the original litigants.
• City OF Coral Springs v. Fla. Nat'l Props., Inc.
  340 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-12-24 ·cited 30×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for injunctive relief because it did not sufficiently allege irreparable harm.
• Adams v. Fed. Express Corp.
  547 F.2d 319· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 30×
  An uncertified labor organization does not have an express or implied right to maintain an action under the Railway Labor Act, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Senex Corp.
  534 F.2d 1240· 6th Cir.· 1976-05-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in entering the preliminary injunction.
• Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Greenspun
  330 So. 2d 561· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-04-20 ·cited 30×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that while a temporary injunction preventing an insurance rate increase was properly granted, the trial court erred in ordering the impaneling of a special board to hear evidence, as this exceeded its procedural and statutory authority.
• Beraldine L. Acha and Arlene M. Egan v. Beame
  531 F.2d 648· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a seniority system, while generally valid, cannot be used to perpetuate past discrimination, and relief is available to those who prove they were improperly denied rightful placement in the seniority hierarchy due to discrimination.
• United States v. The State OF Cal.
  504 F.2d 750· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1974-09-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief because the Economic Stabilization Program had expired, and the exceptions to the expiration did not apply to the facts presented.
• HOH v. Pepsico
  491 F.2d 556· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the unions failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and unduly delayed in invoking available arbitration remedies.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. United Fin. Grp., Inc.
  474 F.2d 354· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was proper and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction and appointing a receiver.
• Toney v. Reagan
  467 F.2d 953· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that probationary professors alleging First Amendment violations for non-renewal must exhaust prospective state administrative remedies if those remedies are fair and adequate, and that the California State College System's grievance procedure met this standard.