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

• Robert W. Stark, JR., Inc. v. NEW York Stock Exch., Inc.
  466 F.2d 743· 2d Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 30×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World
  461 F.2d 1040· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court's order limiting the scope of injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Consolidation Coal Co. v. Disabled Miners OF Southern West Virginia
  442 F.2d 1261· 4th Cir.· 1971-05-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that preliminary injunctions must comply with procedural rules regarding notice and hearing, and that injunctions should be narrowly tailored. It also found that an association was improperly dismissed as a party.
• Bayless v. Martine
  430 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the students' suspensions were valid because they violated lawful directions from the Dean of Students regarding the time and place of their demonstration.
• S. Alameda Spanish Speaking Org. (also known as Sasso) v. City OF Union City
  424 F.2d 291· 9th Cir.· 1970-03-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a city-wide referendum rejecting a zoning change for low-income housing did not violate due process or equal protection, and thus did not require a three-judge court or preliminary injunction.
• Atomic OIL Co. OF Okla., Inc. v. Bardahl OIL Co.
  419 F.2d 1097· 10th Cir.· 1969-12-30 ·cited 30×
  A bond given as a condition precedent to a temporary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c) is supplemented, not supplanted, by a second bond for a permanent injunction, and recovery is permissible on both bonds even if the trial court later determines the injunction was improperly
• Thompson v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  361 F.2d 137· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding seniority transfers is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Adjustment Board, not the courts. The second claim under the LMRDA was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• McCOY v. La. State Bd. OF Educ.
  332 F.2d 915· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-05 ·cited 30×
  The court granted the motion for an injunction pending appeal, ordering the admission of the plaintiff and others similarly situated to the state college.
• Austin v. Altman
  332 F.2d 273· 2d Cir.· 1964-05-15 ·cited 30×
  The denial of a temporary restraining order is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the complaint fails to establish federal question or diversity jurisdiction.
• Farowitz v. Associated Musicians OF Greater NEW York
  330 F.2d 999· 2d Cir.· 1964-04-29 ·cited 30×
  A union member is protected against disciplinary action for urging non-payment of dues when he has good reason to believe the dues are illegal, and exhaustion of internal union remedies is not required if it would be futile.
• Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc. v. Numanna Labs. Corp.
  215 F.2d 382· 7th Cir.· 1954-08-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, as the record presented a reasonable basis for the order.
• McCall v. Lee
  66 Fla. 14· Fla.· 1913-06-17 ·cited 30×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court dismissed an appeal from a contempt order, holding that such orders are not directly appealable. The proper remedy for an allegedly illegal imprisonment due to contempt is habeas corpus.
• Jones v. Governor of Florida
  950 F.3d 795· 11th Cir.· 2020-02-19 ·cited 29×
  Florida voters approved Amendment 4 in 2018 to automatically restore voting rights to felons who completed their sentences, but Florida's legislature implemented the amendment to require payment of all fines, fees, and restitution as a condition of re-enfranchisement. The Elevent
• City OF Cocoa v. Glynn Leffler
  762 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-07-28 ·cited 29×·via Temporary Injunction
  The City of Cocoa appeals a summary judgment ruling that denied its claim for a permanent injunction requiring three employee-inventors to assign their patent rights for a novel bacterial-based hydrogen sulfide removal system developed during their employment. The Florida appella
• Friedrich Wilhelm Waffenschmidt v. MacKay
  763 F.2d 711· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 29×
  Nonparties who reside outside a court's territorial jurisdiction may be subject to its jurisdiction if they actively aid and abet a party in violating a court order, with actual notice of that order.
• Supreme Serv. Station Corp. v. Telecredit Serv. Ctr., Inc.
  424 So. 2d 844· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-23 ·cited 29×·via Temporary Injunction
• Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp.
  690 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and abstention doctrines do not bar federal injunctive relief, and the Michigan Take-Over Offers Act's enforcement provisions unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.
• S. Monorail Co. v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.
  666 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the threatened harm to the movant did not outweigh the harm to the non-movant.
• Cmty. Commc'ns Co., Inc. v. City OF Boulder
  660 F.2d 1370· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the City's districting ordinance for cable operators raises substantial First Amendment issues and that the district court erred in granting a broad preliminary injunction to the cable company. The court modified the injunction to preserve the status quo pendi
• DOE v. Aldo Colautti
  592 F.2d 704· 3d Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 29×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Equal Protection Clause.
• Hardin v. The Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co.
  572 F.2d 1106· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctions because the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable injury.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cont'l Tobacco Co. OF S.C., Inc.
  463 F.2d 137· 5th Cir.· 1972-06-02 ·cited 29×
• Vernitron Corp. & Am. Med. Instrument Corp. v. Benjamin
  440 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-05 ·cited 29×
  A federal court injunction staying a state court action is not warranted merely because the state court's factual determinations might have collateral estoppel effect in a federal court with exclusive jurisdiction.
• Sellers v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal.
  432 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-17 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, refusing to convene a three-judge court, as there was no genuine threat of irreparable harm or chilling effect on First Amendment rights to warrant injunctive relief.
• Stagg Shop OF Miami, Inc. v. Moss
  120 So. 2d 39· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-04-29 ·cited 29×·via Temporary Injunction
  Stagg Shop of Miami, Inc. and Stagg Shop of Coral Gables, Inc. sought to enjoin Albert Moss and Maurice Moss from using the name "Stagg Ltd." for their West Palm Beach men's clothing store. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that without proof of actual custom
• Jonjuan Salon, Inc. v. Acosta
  922 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-03-22 ·cited 28×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a temporary injunction because the plaintiff likely established a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Deepwater Invs. v. Jackson Hole SKI Corp. & Paul M. McCollister
  938 F.2d 1105· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact did not exist, and summary judgment for the defendant was proper.
• Sandstrom v. Sandstrom
  565 So. 2d 914· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-08-29 ·cited 28×·via Temporary Injunction
  A husband appeals a temporary injunction restraining him from selling or disposing of marital assets during divorce proceedings. The Florida appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that Section 61.11 authorizes courts to enjoin dissipation of marital assets before final
• Korn v. Ambassador Homes, Inc.
  546 So. 2d 756· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-07-11 ·cited 28×·via Temporary Injunction
  Court affirmed temporary injunction freezing assets pending arbitration of constructive trust claim, holding that injunction is proper to preserve the res when dissipation is probable and success on the merits is reasonably likely.
• In re Fredeman Litig. Dixie Carriers, Inc. v. Channel Fueling Serv., Inc.
  843 F.2d 821· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-15 ·cited 28×
  A preliminary injunction freezing a defendant's assets unrelated to the underlying litigation is generally impermissible under federal equitable principles and is not authorized by the RICO statute for private plaintiffs seeking damages.
• Alva Gutierrez v. Mun. Court OF the Se. Jud. Dist.
  838 F.2d 1031· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against an English-only rule, finding a likelihood of success on the merits under Title VII and the possibility of irreparable injury. It also held that the judges were not ent
• Nat'l Fed'n OF Fed. Emps. v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  818 F.2d 935· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear challenges to mandatory drug testing programs for federal employees, and that prospective injunctive relief is not barred by the availability of a damages remedy.
• SAN Diego Comm. Against Registration & THE Draft (Card) v. The Governing Bd. OF the Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist.
  790 F.2d 1471· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the school newspapers constitute a limited public forum, and the Board's exclusion of CARD's anti-draft advertisement, while permitting military recruitment advertisements, constituted viewpoint-based discrimination violating the First Amendment.
• Prof'l Plan Exam'rs OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Lefante
  750 F.2d 282· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred by extending restraints without proper findings and by improperly abstaining from deciding federal constitutional and antitrust claims.
• Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharm. Co., Inc.
  747 F.2d 844· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a permanent injunction, finding that Bolar's imitation of CIBA's APRESAZIDE trade dress violated both New Jersey unfair competition law and the federal Lanham Act.
• Nat'l Ctr. FOR Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  743 F.2d 1365· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-28 ·cited 28×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the regulation was likely invalid because it lacked individualized determinations and was not sufficiently related to the Immigration and Nationality Act's purposes, justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Allegheny Cnty. Sanitary Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (EPA)
  732 F.2d 1167· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 28×
  A state agency and its officials cannot be sued in federal court for alleged violations of state law, and the Water Pollution Control Act does not create a federal right of action against them. The Act also preempts claims against the EPA under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• The Wisser Co., Inc. v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  730 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 28×
  Terminations under PMPA sections 102(b)(2)(A) and 102(b)(2)(C) do not require notice and an opportunity to cure before notice of termination is given, and forthwith termination was reasonable in this case.
• The City OF Meridian v. Algernon Blair, Inc.
  721 F.2d 525· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 28×
  An order granting a stay of arbitration pending litigation is an appealable interlocutory order, and the Federal Arbitration Act mandates arbitration for disputes arising under a contract, even if the merits of the claim are questionable.
• Wilson v. Watt
  703 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-05 ·cited 28×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the balance of hardships tipped sharply in favor of the Alaska Natives and they had a fair chance of success on the merits regarding both the tribal contract claims and the individual recipie
• Ebel v. City OF Corona
  698 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 28×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that Ebel met the standard for a preliminary injunction, as there were serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipped decidedly in her favor.
• Nat'l City Lines, Inc. v. LLC Corp.
  687 F.2d 1122· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar an injunction against state court proceedings when federal relief is sought but not yet granted.
• Alschuler v. Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  686 F.2d 472· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that neighborhood residents have standing to challenge HUD's approval of a low-income housing project based on concerns about racial and economic concentration, but not for claims solely benefiting project inhabitants.
• Crowley v. Local NO. 82
  679 F.2d 978· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-21 ·cited 28×
  The court's interpretation of the statutory scheme, allowing a district court to invalidate an election and order a new one under its supervision after balloting has commenced, is incorrect.
• Visual Scis., Inc. v. Integrated Commc'ns Inc.
  660 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction order must be vacated because the district court failed to conduct a fair hearing with adequate findings of fact and denied defendants the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc.
  630 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that structural similarity alone does not bar patentability for a new chemical compound; its unexpected properties must also be considered. The district court did not err in finding cephalexin nonobvious and did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary in
• Caldwell v. Blum
  621 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of preliminary relief, holding that New York's transfer-of-assets restriction for medically needy individuals violates federal law by imposing more restrictive eligibility standards than those for the categorically needy.
• United States v. Bedford Assocs.
  618 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the government's appeal from the preliminary injunction's condition requiring payment of utilities, and that the district court had jurisdiction to impose such a condition, but the injunction must be modified.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Nat'l TEA Co.
  603 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-16 ·cited 28×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion or err in its legal premise by denying the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction to block National Tea's acquisition of Applebaum's.
• Local Div. 519, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Lacrosse Mun. Transit Util. & City of LaCrosse
  585 F.2d 1340· 7th Cir.· 1978-10-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to enforce the 13(c) agreement, and that abstention was not appropriate. The court also found the preliminary injunction was properly issued.