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

• Wayne Chem., Inc. v. Columbus Agency Serv. Corp.
  567 F.2d 692· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Indiana insurance law was not preempted by ERISA because the insurance plan was not an 'employee benefit plan' under ERISA, making the agent liable for the unauthorized insurer's default.
• S. Ohio Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  551 F.2d 695· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a union's refusal to cross stranger picket lines is not an arbitrable dispute subject to injunction under Boys Markets, and that injunctions against district and international unions require more than mere notice.
• Usery v. The Honorable Willis W. Ritter
  547 F.2d 528· 10th Cir.· 1977-01-03 ·cited 28×
  The Secretary of Labor is not required to disclose the identity of informants in an Equal Pay Act suit, as the government's interest in confidentiality outweighs the defendants' need for disclosure in this case.
• Essex Cnty. Pres. Ass'n v. Campbell
  536 F.2d 956· 1st Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 28×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that while a supplemental EIS was required due to a gubernatorial moratorium, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the identified violations were technical and no irreparable harm was demonstrated.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Simeon Mgmt. Corp.
  532 F.2d 708· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court applied the correct legal standard for granting an injunction under Section 53(a) and 53(b) of the FTC Act, requiring an independent judicial inquiry into the merits and equities, not just the FTC's reasonable belief.
• Rowley v. Honorable James B. McMILLAN
  502 F.2d 1326· 4th Cir.· 1974-07-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that official immunity does not apply to suits for injunctive relief and that the federal defendants waived their objection to personal jurisdiction. The court also found that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction or in ordering discov
• Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  476 F.2d 860· 3d Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 28×
  A party cannot attack the validity of an underlying court order in a civil contempt proceeding if they failed to appeal or object to that order when it was issued.
• Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Ltd.
  454 F.2d 527· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction over Bombardier was proper under the Massachusetts long arm statute and that the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Hull v. August Petrillo
  439 F.2d 1184· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, as the alleged campaign of harassment, including the potential application of an unconstitutional ordinance, warranted further factual development.
• Knox Hill Tenant Council v. Washington
  448 F.2d 1045· D.C. Cir.· 1971-02-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that sovereign immunity does not bar a suit alleging federal officials failed to maintain public housing according to statutory and contractual duties, and that the D.C. Housing Regulations can apply to such housing.
• William Gluckin & Co., Inc. v. Int'l Playtex Corp.
  407 F.2d 177· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to restrain a patent infringement suit filed against a customer, prioritizing a second-filed declaratory judgment action against the manufacturer when the balance of convenien
• Cap. City GAS Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  373 F.2d 128· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-14 ·cited 28×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a permanent injunction without proper notice and a full hearing on the merits, and that a temporary injunction was not warranted due to a lack of irreparable injury.
• Maas v. United States
  371 F.2d 348· D.C. Cir.· 1966-11-25 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to prevent the dissemination of a prisoner's manuscript, as the government's interest in law enforcement and prison order outweighed the appellant's claims.
• Woods v. Theo R. Wright
  334 F.2d 369· 5th Cir.· 1964-07-20 ·cited 28×
  The denial of a temporary restraining order in this case is appealable because the delay until final judgment would cause irreparable loss and moot the claims. The district court should have entered a temporary restraining order.
• Peter PAN Fabrics, Inc. v. Dixon Textile Corp.
  280 F.2d 800· 2d Cir.· 1960-03-30 ·cited 28×
• Millworth Converting Corp. v. Slifka
  276 F.2d 443· 2d Cir.· 1960-03-17 ·cited 28×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the defendants' fabric did not infringe the plaintiff's copyright because they did not copy the plaintiff's specific expression of a public domain design.
• ALL Am. Airways, Inc. v. Elderd
  209 F.2d 247· 2d Cir.· 1954-01-04 ·cited 28×·via Injunction Pendente Lite
  The court held that the order dismissing counterclaims as to "related defendants" and requiring amendment of the answer was not an appealable order.
• Chas. D. Briddell, Inc. v. Alglobe Trading Corp.
  194 F.2d 416· 2d Cir.· 1952-01-21 ·cited 28×
  The court's majority opinion is criticized by the dissenting judge for its substantive and procedural grounds, particularly regarding the issuance of an injunction and the assessment of likelihood of confusion.
• Toledo v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen
  132 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1942-12-16 ·cited 28×·via Temporary Injunction
  The dissenting judge argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the controversy did not arise under federal law, and alternatively, that the plaintiff forfeited its right to injunctive relief by refusing to arbitrate.
• High v. Jasper Mfg. Co.
  57 Fla. 437· Fla.· 1909-01-01 ·cited 28×·via Temporary Injunction
  John High sought an injunction to prevent Jasper Manufacturing Company and B. G. Smith from cutting timber High claimed to own via a deed from C. A. Register. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dissolution of the temporary injunction, holding that Register's con
• HUB Grp., Inc. v. C.A. No. 2024-0471-SG Christopher Knoll
  Del. Ch.· 2024-07-18 ·cited 27×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The Delaware Court of Chancery denied Hub Group, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-competition agreement against former employee Christopher Knoll. The court found that the non-compete agreement was overbroad in its definitions of 'Restricted Territory,'
• State of Ga. v. President of the United States
  46 F.4th 1283· 11th Cir.· 2022-08-26 ·cited 27×
  Georgia and several other states challenged the federal contractor vaccine mandate issued through Executive Order 14042, arguing the President lacked authority under the Procurement Act to require COVID-19 vaccination for employees of federal contractors. The Eleventh Circuit agr
• Fla. Dep't of Health v. Florigrown, LLC
  317 So. 3d 1101· Fla.· 2021-05-27 ·cited 27×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision upholding a temporary injunction that blocked enforcement of medical marijuana licensing requirements, holding that Florigrown failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its constitutional ch
• BAY N Gulf, Inc. v. Anchor Seafood, Inc.
  971 So. 2d 842· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-10-24 ·cited 27×·via Temporary Injunction
  Bay N Gulf appealed the trial court's dissolution of a temporary injunction preventing Anchor Seafood from conveying frozen seafood. The court affirmed, holding that a trial court has continuing discretion to dissolve a temporary injunction and that the trial court did not abuse
• Burk v. Augusta-Richmond Cnty.
  365 F.3d 1247· 11th Cir.· 2004-04-15 ·cited 27×
  The district court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction challenging an ordinance requiring permits for protests. The court found the ordinance to be a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction, not an impermissible prior restraint,
• Longshore Lakes Joint Venture v. Mundy
  616 So. 2d 1047· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-03-19 ·cited 27×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the grant of a temporary injunction but reversed and remanded because the trial court set the injunction bond without allowing the parties to present evidence on the appropriate bond amount.
• Country Floors, Inc. v. A P'ship Composed OF Charley Gepner & Gary Ford
  930 F.2d 1056· 3d Cir.· 1991-04-16 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court erred by using credibility determinations from a preliminary injunction hearing to decide a motion for summary judgment, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding likelihood of confusion and prior use.
• United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-Op
  833 F.2d 172· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court applied an erroneous and overly restrictive legal standard in denying the government's motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce the FDCA.
• Hanson Tr. PLC v. ML SCM Acquisition Inc.
  781 F.2d 264· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court's findings indicated a likelihood of a breach of the duty of due care by the directors, despite the business judgment rule.
• Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Ill. Commerce Comm'n
  740 F.2d 566· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to stay proceedings and properly granted a preliminary injunction, as the federal law issues and the ongoing nature of the state court proceedings weighed against abstention, and the utility demonstra
• Toussaint v. Yockey
  722 F.2d 1490· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction regarding double-celling and exercise, but vacated the portion concerning food services due to lack of factual support.
• Baldwin Metals Co., Inc. v. Donovan
  642 F.2d 768· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 27×
  Federal district courts should not exercise jurisdiction to invalidate OSHA search warrants or suppress evidence before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) has rendered a final administrative decision, as parties must exhaust administrative remedies and e
• Beech-Nut, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co.
  480 F.2d 801· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-19 ·cited 27×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to remand and its motion for a preliminary injunction, as the products' names and packaging were sufficiently distinct to avoid consumer deception.
• Helfenbein v. Int'l Indus., Inc.
  438 F.2d 1068· 8th Cir.· 1971-01-14 ·cited 27×
  The court held that federal antitrust laws do not provide a basis for enjoining state court arbitration proceedings or eviction actions for the collection of ordinary debts, even if those debts are related to allegedly illegal tie-in agreements.
• Dream Defenders v. Governor of the State of Fla.
  57 F.4th 879· 11th Cir.· 2023-01-10 ·cited 26×
  The Eleventh Circuit certified a question about the interpretation of Florida's riot statute to the Florida Supreme Court, finding it appropriate to allow the state court to interpret the law before ruling on its constitutionality.
• Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz
  194 So. 3d 434· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-05-06 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that all elements for injunctive relief were satisfied, reversing the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction.
• Concerned Citizens FOR Jud. Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci
  162 So. 3d 68· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-09-03 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  A Florida appellate court reversed a temporary injunction prohibiting an electioneering organization from publishing information about a judicial candidate during a political campaign, holding that the injunction constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment
• CBS Broad., Inc. v. Echostar Commc'ns Corp.
  265 F.3d 1193· 11th Cir.· 2001-09-17 ·cited 26×
  EchoStar Communications Corporation appealed a preliminary injunction prohibiting it from transmitting distant network signals to "served" households under the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) and the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the
• Vargas v. Vargas
  771 So. 2d 594· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-11-15 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary injunction, but the bond amount was inadequate.
• Precision Tune Auto Care, Inc. v. Radcliff
  731 So. 2d 744· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-03-31 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  Precision Tune Auto Care appeals the denial of its motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that preserved the status quo in a franchise dispute with Radcliff and Performance Concepts. The Fourth District holds that a trial court has discretion to reconsider a temporary injuncti
• Pecora v. Pecora
  697 So. 2d 1267· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-01 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  Emily Pecora appeals a temporary injunction order that her estranged husband Raymond obtained against her, barring her from the business premises of two corporations they jointly owned. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the injunction despite procedural defects, findi
• Northstar Invs. & Dev., Inc. v. Pobaco, Inc.
  691 So. 2d 565· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-04-11 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  A party cannot be held in contempt for violating an order that is not clear and definite.
• Thornton v. Barnes
  890 F.2d 1380· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a policy-making public office, even if unpaid, is not 'property' protected by the Due Process Clause, and federal courts should not interpret state law or constitutional issues unnecessarily.
• Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott
  869 F.2d 1306· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 26×
  The court should hold the Church estopped from appealing the denial of its subsequent application for preliminary relief.
• Arcamuzi v. Cont'l AIR Lines, Inc.
  819 F.2d 935· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of retaliation to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• Minimatic Components, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  494 So. 2d 303· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-09-24 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  Minimatic Components and Leon Shaw appealed a temporary injunction issued by the trial court that prevented Shaw from ousting Westinghouse from leased premises in Minimatic's manufacturing plant. The appellate court vacated the injunction, finding it was issued without adequate n
• People OF the Vill. OF Gambell v. Hodel
  774 F.2d 1414· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as it failed to give proper weight to the statutory policy protecting Native Alaskan subsistence needs and culture.
• Merrill Lynch v. Bradley
  756 F.2d 1048· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 26×
  Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a district court has discretion to grant a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration if the enjoined conduct would render the arbitration process a 'hollow formality'.
• Citibank v. Citytrust & Citytrust Bancorp, Inc.
  756 F.2d 273· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a prerequisite for a preliminary injunction, due to their significant delay in seeking relief and other factors.
• Friends FOR ALL Child., Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
  746 F.2d 816· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that District of Columbia tort law recognizes a cause of action for the cost of diagnostic examinations necessitated by a defendant's negligence, even in the absence of proven physical injury, and that a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring the defendant to f