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

• Norlin Corp. v. Rooney
  744 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-27 ·cited 26×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction barring Norlin from voting stock transferred to its subsidiary and ESOP, as these actions likely violated corporate law and fiduciary duties.
• Painting & Decorating Contractors Ass'n OF Sacramento, Inc. v. Painters & Decorators Joint Comm. OF the E. BAY Cntys., Inc.
  707 F.2d 1067· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 26×
  A non-signatory to a collective bargaining agreement can be a proper party to a suit brought under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act if the resolution of the lawsuit is focused upon and governed by the terms of the contract.
• Buckhanon v. Percy
  708 F.2d 1209· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the June 1, 1982 order was appealable as it raised a new issue (Eleventh Amendment immunity) not previously litigated, but the appeal was limited to that issue. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits retroactive AFDC payments for the period before the January 14, 19
• Trailer Train Co. v. State Bd. OF Equalization
  697 F.2d 860· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the 4-R Act applies and authorizes injunctions, the district court erred in determining the applicable tax rate for commercial and industrial property, requiring a remand.
• The MacHlett Labs., Inc. v. Techny Indus., Inc.
  665 F.2d 795· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-08 ·cited 26×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law, and the balance of hardships and public interest did not favor the injunction.
• Otero Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. The Fed. Reserve Bank OF Kan. City
  665 F.2d 275· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the Reserve Bank lacked statutory authority to refuse processing of the associations' checks and drafts.
• Scott & Fetzer Co. (the Kirby Co. Division) v. Dile
  643 F.2d 670· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the plaintiff to introduce undisclosed witnesses and exhibits and present a new theory of the case, thus invalidating the preliminary injunction and subsequent contempt finding.
• Spiegel v. City OF Houston
  636 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 26×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was overly broad and reversed its issuance, remanding for revision.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. City OF Janesville
  630 F.2d 1254· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the City to reinstate the Chief of Police, as the City's reliance on state legislative judgment regarding a bona fide occupational qualification for protective service empl
• Jacquelyn Renee Town v. State of Fla. ex rel. Janet Reno
  377 So. 2d 648· Fla.· 1979-11-01 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction prohibiting the use of cannabis as a religious practice by the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church and enjoining use of residential property as a church in violation of zoning ordinances. The court held that Florida's compelling in
• Nat'l Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke
  608 F.2d 819· 1st Cir.· 1979-10-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of certain state regulations, as the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not bar a judicial determination of federal preemption.
• Ekanem v. The Health & Hosp. Corp. OF Marion Cnty.
  589 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury.
• Paige v. Harris
  584 F.2d 178· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-12 ·cited 26×
  A HUD attorney in the excepted service, terminated without a hearing, has a property interest in continued employment based on HUD Handbook 302.2, entitling them to a hearing to challenge the sufficiency of the grounds for discharge.
• Jennings v. Perrine Fish Mkt., Inc.
  360 So. 2d 434· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-06-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the chancellor did not abuse discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Sangmeister v. Woodard
  565 F.2d 460· 7th Cir.· 1977-11-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the practice of Illinois County Clerks placing their own party's candidates in the top ballot position violates the Equal Protection Clause, but vacated the district court's specific rotational remedy, remanding for the clerks to devise a constitutionally perm
• Gen. Aircraft Corp. v. Irwin S. Lampert
  556 F.2d 90· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while appellants violated Section 13(d) by failing to file a timely and accurate Schedule 13D, they should not have been enjoined from voting their legally acquired shares as no irreparable harm was shown for that specific relief.
• Spinetti v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  522 F.2d 1401· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that appeals from interlocutory orders denying preliminary injunctions in private actions arising under the Economic Stabilization Act and Allocation Act require certification by the district court, and absent such certification, this court lacks jurisdiction.
• Evans v. Lynn
  537 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 26×
  The dissent argues that minority residents of a county should have standing to challenge federal agency inaction in furthering housing policy mandates.
• Roseanna Roselli v. Affleck
  508 F.2d 1277· 1st Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 26×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding no clear error of law or abuse of discretion in the lower court's determination that the state's new flat grant welfare program likely violated federal requirements by failing to accurately reflect the prior standard of need.
• Brandeis Mach. & Supply Corp. & State Equip. Co. v. Barber-Greene Co.
  503 F.2d 503· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, finding no clear error in its determination of a likelihood of success on the merits.
• LA Raza Unida OF S. Alameda Cnty. v. Volpe
  488 F.2d 559· 9th Cir.· 1973-11-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that state highway commissions must comply with federal relocation and environmental protection statutes before project approval and federal funding, not merely as an option to receive funding.
• Buffler v. Elec. Computer Programming Inst., Inc.
  466 F.2d 694· 6th Cir.· 1972-08-30 ·cited 26×
  An order granting a preliminary injunction against arbitration proceedings is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and the district court improvidently exercised its discretion in issuing such an injunction without sufficient basis.
• Linwood T. Ford v. Kammerer
  450 F.2d 279· 3d Cir.· 1971-10-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a contempt order based on violation of a preliminary injunction must be reversed if the injunction's terms do not specifically prohibit the conduct found to be contemptuous.
• United States v. Robinson
  449 F.2d 925· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellants received sufficient notice of the contempt charges and that the evidence supported their convictions for violating the preliminary injunction.
• A. L. K. Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.
  440 F.2d 761· 3d Cir.· 1971-04-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a prerequisite for a preliminary injunction, because potential lost income from a unique film could be adequately remedied by monetary damages.
• Bradley v. Milliken
  433 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Section 12 of Michigan Act 48 is unconstitutional as it violates the Fourteenth Amendment by impeding the Detroit Board of Education's efforts to achieve racial balance in schools. The court also reversed the dismissal of the Governor and Attorney General as p
• Crowther v. Seaborg
  415 F.2d 437· 10th Cir.· 1969-09-02 ·cited 26×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of irreparable harm.
• Rural Electrification Administration v. Cent. La. Elec. Co., Inc.
  354 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1966-01-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs, investor-owned electric companies, lacked the requisite standing to challenge a loan made by the Rural Electrification Administration to a cooperative, and that the courts lacked jurisdiction to review such loan decisions.
• The W. E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc.
  354 F.2d 868· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-03 ·cited 26×
  A preliminary injunction against trademark infringement is modified to allow the sale of existing inventory, but further use of the infringing mark is prohibited.
• Imperial Chem. Indus. Ltd. v. Nat'l Distillers & Chem. Corp.
  354 F.2d 459· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable injury.
• Hedberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  350 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1965-08-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount because they had a common and undivided interest in the defendant's conduct, and that the restrictive covenant in the employment contracts was reasonable and enforceable under Minneso
• Brumby Metals, Inc. v. Bargen
  275 F.2d 46· 7th Cir.· 1960-02-15 ·cited 26×
  A party can waive the right to strict compliance with Rule 65(d)'s specificity requirements for injunctions by consenting to the form of the injunction order.
• Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Randolph
  182 F.2d 996· 8th Cir.· 1950-06-23 ·cited 26×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to dissolve the temporary restraining order, and that the appeal served no useful purpose.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. On Point Cap. P'rs LLC
  17 F.4th 1066· 11th Cir.· 2021-11-04 ·cited 25×
  The Federal Trade Commission challenged a preliminary injunction against On Point Capital Partners and related entities for allegedly deceiving consumers through websites that misrepresented government services and sold personal information, and the court upheld the injunction's
• Baltazar Salazar and Walter Salazar Pest Control v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc.
  230 So. 3d 619· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-11-17 ·cited 25×·via Temporary Injunction
  The trial court's order granting a temporary injunction must contain specific factual findings supporting the necessary elements for injunctive relief, and must address affirmative defenses.
• McCABE v. McCABE
  600 So. 2d 1181· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-05-22 ·cited 25×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this family law appeal, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the wife's motion to divest jurisdiction over a dissolution of marriage and child custody action. The court held that the trial court lacked both personal jurisdiction over
• Sarasota Bev. Co. v. Johnson
  551 So. 2d 503· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-08-02 ·cited 25×
  Sarasota Beverage Company appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction to enforce a noncompetition agreement against former employee Johnson who was hired by competitor Blaikie & Sons. The court reverses, holding that when a noncompetition agreement is reasonable as to time and
• Sierra Club v. Marsh
  816 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the Army Corps of Engineers violated the Endangered Species Act by allowing construction to continue without ensuring mitigation lands were secured and by refusing to reinitiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh
  812 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 25×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of confusion, and the record precluded a presumption of irreparable harm.
• Plains Cotton Coop. Ass'n OF Lubbock v. Goodpasture Computer Serv., Inc.
  807 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-21 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm for its copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims.
• Wagner Seed Co. (a subsidiary of Wagner Bros. Feed Corp.) v. Daggett
  800 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the EPA's administrative order on its merits before an enforcement action, and that Wagner's constitutional claims were without merit.
• Mary Dee's, Inc. v. Tartamella
  492 So. 2d 815· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-08-13 ·cited 25×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this appeal from a non-final order, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, holding that plaintiffs seeking to collect on a promissory note had an adequate remedy at law through money judgment and pr
• Smith Int'l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co.
  759 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the denial of motions to dissolve the preliminary injunction and dismissed appeals challenging orders that barred evidence of fraud and denied summary judgment, based on the law of the case doctrine.
• Revette v. The Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge
  740 F.2d 892· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-31 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, even if the merits present a close question.
• Merrill Lynch v. Hovey
  726 F.2d 1286· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-25 ·cited 25×
  The court held that disputes arising from post-termination solicitation and record retention by former employees are arbitrable under the Federal Arbitration Act and NYSE rules, and that the district court erred in granting injunctive relief.
• United States v. Spilotro
  680 F.2d 612· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a pretrial restraining order under RICO is an appealable interlocutory order and that the government must present evidence at a hearing to justify its issuance, not rely solely on the indictment.
• United Mine Workers OF Am. Dist. NO. 5 v. Consolidation Coal Co.
  666 F.2d 806· 3d Cir.· 1981-12-02 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute because it was arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, and the preliminary injunction was overbroad.
• DELTA Gen. Corp. v. Priess
  389 So. 2d 1083· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-11-04 ·cited 25×·via Temporary Injunction
  A mandatory injunction cannot be granted prior to a final hearing unless the right is clear and free from doubt.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Interstate Dress Carriers
  610 F.2d 99· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-19 ·cited 25×
  The district court's order impounding ballots pending discovery was an appealable preliminary injunction, but the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the employer's counterclaim challenging the representation proceeding's procedural irregularities.
• Uni-Chem Corp. OF Fla., Inc. v. Maret
  338 So. 2d 885· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-10-26 ·cited 25×·via Temporary Injunction
  Uni-Chem Corporation sought a temporary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement against former salesmen who violated the covenant by immediately joining a competitor. The trial court denied the temporary injunction, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that even with a