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

• Michael v. Costello
  525 F.2d 1239· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-15 ·cited 25×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The dissenting judge held that the district court's order was impossible for the defendant to comply with without violating Florida law, and that a three-judge court should have been convened.
• Salem INN, Inc. v. Frank
  501 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 25×
  The court held that federal courts should not intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other special circumstances, even if the federal suit was filed first.
• Dwen v. Barry
  483 F.2d 1126· 2d Cir.· 1973-08-22 ·cited 25×
  Summary dismissal of a civil rights action challenging police hair grooming regulations was improper because the department failed to demonstrate a legitimate state interest justifying the restriction on personal liberty.
• Berk v. Laird
  429 F.2d 302· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that while the claim might be justiciable, it likely presented a political question and the balance of equities did not favor a preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Theron C. Lynd
  321 F.2d 26· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-15 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the prior order was appealable and that the District Court erred in denying the application for a preliminary injunction.
• Knox v. Dist. Sch. Bd. OF Brevard
  821 So. 2d 311· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-05-03 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  Knox appealed the denial of her request for a temporary injunction against the Brevard County School Board, claiming that closed interviews for a middle school principal position violated Florida's Sunshine Law. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the interview team serve
• W.J. Spradley, Jr. v. OLD Harmony Baptist Church
  721 So. 2d 735· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-07-27 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court reversed an injunctive order issued by the trial court that imposed requirements on the appellants regarding use of disputed property by a church, finding the injunction was legally insufficient because it was entered sua sponte without a proper request, contained manda
• Popular Bank of Fla. v. Banco Popular Puerto RICO
  9 F. Supp. 2d 1347· S.D. Fla.· 1998-06-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding its trademark infringement claim, finding its mark had acquired secondary meaning.
• Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy
  957 F. Supp. 1262· S.D. Fla.· 1997-01-14 ·cited 24×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate fraud or mistake to warrant relief from judgment, and their fear of statute enforcement was not actual or imminent, thus lacking standing.
• Conway Brock, Jr. v. Newman D. Brock
  667 So. 2d 310· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-09-27 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this will contest appeal, the court reversed a trial court's order unfreezing assets that had been frozen pending resolution of a challenge to the validity of a will and trust agreement. The court held that assets should remain frozen during the pendency of an appeal challengi
• Boston Celtics Ltd. P'ship v. Shaw
  908 F.2d 1041· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lawfully enforced the arbitration award and issued a preliminary injunction, as the arbitration award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and the district court properly considered the factors for injunctive relief.
• The Keds Corp. v. Renee Int'l Trading Corp.
  888 F.2d 215· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Renee and that Keds was likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claim, warranting a preliminary injunction.
• P.C.B. P'ship v. The City OF Largo
  549 So. 2d 738· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-09-27 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  P.C.B. Partnership challenged the dismissal of its amended complaint arising from the City of Largo's failure to construct a curvilinear road pursuant to a land disposition agreement. The court affirmed dismissal of the original claims but reversed and remanded, holding that the
• Hunt v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc.
  872 F.2d 289· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the broadcast of a docudrama, as the plaintiff failed to meet the high burden required for a prior restraint on First Amendment rights.
• Util. Workers OF Am., Local NO. 246, AFL-CIO v. S. Cal. Edison Co.
  852 F.2d 1083· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 24×
  Section 301 of the LMRA preempts state law claims concerning drug testing when resolution substantially depends on the collective bargaining agreement, and a union must exhaust grievance procedures before a court can hear a breach of contract claim.
• Home BOX Off., Inc. v. Showtime/THE Movie Channel Inc.
  832 F.2d 1311· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-03 ·cited 24×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted due to likely consumer confusion, the district court erred in exempting promotional materials with disclaimers and in admitting revised materials without adequate notice to the opposing party.
• Sanchez v. Abner Solomon
  508 So. 2d 1264· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-05-26 ·cited 24×
  The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dissolve or modify the injunction freezing the disputed bank accounts.
• A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman
  808 F.2d 291· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the term 'chocolate fudge' as applied to diet soda is generic and therefore unprotectable as a trademark because it denotes the genus of the product itself.
• N. Alaska Env't Ctr. v. Hodel
  803 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-23 ·cited 24×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction barring mining operations until proper environmental analyses are performed, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Int'l Molders' & Allied Workers' Local Union NO. 164 v. Nelson
  799 F.2d 547· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 24×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that while some provisions of the preliminary injunction were overly restrictive and exceeded Fourth Amendment particularity requirements, the injunction was generally warranted and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting it.
• Lingelbach's Bavarian Rests., Inc. v. del Bello
  467 So. 2d 476· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-03-06 ·cited 24×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  A preliminary injunction may be granted upon a motion, even without a specific prayer for injunctive relief in the complaint, provided proper notice and an evidentiary hearing are afforded.
• Students OF Cal. Sch. FOR THE Blind v. Honig
  736 F.2d 538· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring seismic safety tests or closure of the school, as the students raised serious legal questions under federal law and the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their f
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Chrysler Corp.
  733 F.2d 1183· 6th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Chrysler's forced early retirement policy, which denied employees over 55 the possibility of recall afforded to younger employees, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because age was a determining factor and the policy was not the least-de
• Consumers Union OF United States, Inc. v. Gen. Signal Corp. & Grey Advertising, Inc.
  724 F.2d 1044· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 24×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  A preliminary injunction should not have been issued because the moving party failed to establish either a probability of success on the merits or a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.
• The Land-O-Nod Co. v. Bassett Furniture Indus.
  708 F.2d 1338· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's finding of jurisdiction and its grant of a preliminary injunction, but would remand for modification of the injunction's terms to more accurately preserve the status quo.
• Stacey G. v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist.
  695 F.2d 949· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-20 ·cited 24×
  Federal courts should exercise caution when using equitable powers to enlarge congressionally created programs, ensuring actions align with congressional intent.
• Local 553, Transp. Workers Union OF Am., AFL-CIO v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  695 F.2d 668· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief, but modified the form of the injunction. It found that section 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not bar relief in a major dispute under the RLA, but section 8 did not co
• Shirey v. Bensalem Twp. & Bristol Borough & Bristol Twp. & Buckingham Twp. & Falls Twp. & Middletown Twp. & Tullytown Borough & Warminster Twp. & City of Philadelphia & Police Chief Michaels
  663 F.2d 472· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint as to one of multiple plaintiffs, without a Rule 54(b) certification, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Randall v. Wyrick
  642 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction for alleged inadequate medical treatment is affirmed because the inmate failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or probable success on the merits.
• Clements Wire & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  589 F.2d 894· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court's order, though initially termed a TRO, was a preliminary injunction because it exceeded the 20-day limit and was therefore appealable. The injunction was improperly granted and vacated.
• Preston v. Thompson
  589 F.2d 300· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering immediate implementation of specific shower and recreation requirements in the context of a dangerous post-riot prison environment.
• Huge v. Long's Hauling Co., Inc.
  590 F.2d 457· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-14 ·cited 24×
  A defendant cannot use antitrust or unfair labor practice claims as a defense against a preliminary injunction to compel payments to a union's health and retirement funds.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. British Am. Commodity Options Corp.
  560 F.2d 135· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a prima facie showing of violations of registration provisions and a tenable basis for administrative proceedings warrants a preliminary injunction, even if the Commission has delayed its administrative process.
• Powell v. Ward
  542 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 24×
  Prison officials responsible for security are not automatically disqualified from adjudicating security-related disciplinary charges solely due to their positions. A seven-day limit for disciplinary hearings can be extended in emergencies with proper authorization.
• Truck Drivers Local Union NO. 807 v. The Bohack Corp.
  541 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the union's picketing without ordering the employer to arbitrate, and that bankruptcy court approval is required for arbitration of disputes under a collective bargaining agreement.
• Fern v. Thorp Pub. Sch.
  532 F.2d 1120· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing factors for a preliminary injunction, and therefore the injunction should not be vacated.
• Bryan v. Werner
  516 F.2d 233· 3d Cir.· 1975-05-07 ·cited 24×
  Prison regulations restricting inmate law clinic assistance in suits against the institution and censoring outgoing mail may violate constitutional rights if they impede access to the courts without reasonable alternatives. The court affirmed the dismissal of some claims but reve
• The Chief Freight Lines Co. v. Local Union NO. 886 & S. Area Conf. of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters
  514 F.2d 572· 10th Cir.· 1975-04-08 ·cited 24×·via Application For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that an injunction enforcing a no-strike provision while simultaneously staying arbitration is improper under the Boys Markets exception, as the employer's obligation to arbitrate is a condition for such an injunction.
• Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Carefree Travel, Inc.
  513 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that referring the preliminary injunction question to a magistrate was proper under the circumstances, and the preliminary injunction was correctly issued.
• Peabody Coal Co. v. Local Union NOS. 1734
  484 F.2d 78· 6th Cir.· 1973-09-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the contempt order was improperly granted without an evidentiary hearing and vacated the order. The court also found that the appeal was timely and properly before it.
• Exxon Corp. v. The City OF NEW York
  480 F.2d 460· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the stay pending appeal should be extended, conditioned on the appellants' readiness for trial within 30 days, to allow for further inquiry into substantial issues of preemption and commerce clause burdens.
• Donelon v. NEW Orleans Terminal Co. & Fed. R.R. Admin. of the Dep't of Transp.
  474 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the federal regulatory scheme preempts state and local regulation of railroad safety, and the federal court properly enjoined the state proceedings to protect its jurisdiction and prior judgment.
• Ne. Constr. Co. v. Romney
  485 F.2d 752· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a bidder's failure to provide the number of employees, as required by Appendix A, constituted a "minor informality or irregularity" under procurement regulations, which should have allowed the bidder an opportunity to cure the deficiency.
• Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Wash. Terminal Co.
  473 F.2d 1156· D.C. Cir.· 1972-12-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the dispute over the assignment of incidental work is a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, and therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, not the district court.
• Oliver v. Sch. Dist. OF the City OF Kalamazoo
  448 F.2d 635· 6th Cir.· 1971-08-30 ·cited 24×
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Marshall Durbin Farms, Inc. v. Nat'l Farmers Org., Inc.
  446 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the defendants were not given adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to prepare and present a defense against the plaintiffs' claims and evidence.
• Virvus Jones v. Snead
  431 F.2d 1115· 8th Cir.· 1970-10-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for student reinstatement, as a complete record and final judgment are necessary for appellate review of due process claims.
• Lindahl King v. Saddleback Junior Coll. Dist.
  425 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctions that went beyond preserving the status quo and decreed student registration in violation of school regulations prior to a determination of the regulation's validity.
• Baggett Transp. Co. v. Hughes Transp., Inc.
  393 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1968-04-30 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a temporary injunction, as it had jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C.A. § 322(b)(2) and the circumstances warranted such relief despite a pending review action in another district court.
• Birdie Mae Davis v. Bd. OF Sch. Comm'rs OF Mobile Cnty.
  318 F.2d 63· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion by requesting briefs, but emphasized the duty to promptly rule on the preliminary injunction motion.