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

• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cap. Gains Research Bureau, Inc.
  306 F.2d 606· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-13 ·cited 24×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the SEC failed to establish a violation of sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 based on the defendants' practice of purchasing securities shortly before recommending them and then selling them for a profit, as this conduct did not co
• United States v. Beaty
  288 F.2d 653· 6th Cir.· 1961-04-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the district court lacked authority to adjudicate contract and property rights, it abused its discretion by failing to grant a preliminary injunction against landowners threatening or evicting sharecroppers to interfere with their voting rights.
• Huard-Steinheiser, Inc. v. Henry
  280 F.2d 79· 6th Cir.· 1960-06-17 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a temporary injunction to restrain the enforcement of demand letters requiring information reports on sales of sugar, rye, and cracked corn.
• A. H. Bull S.S. Co. v. Seafarers' Int'l Union OF N. Am., Atl. & Gulf Dist., AFL-CIO
  250 F.2d 326· 2d Cir.· 1957-11-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act did not repeal the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and therefore federal courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin peaceful strikes in labor disputes.
• Burton v. Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc.
  244 F.2d 647· 9th Cir.· 1957-04-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as serious legal questions were presented and the injunction served to preserve the status quo pending final determination.
• Austin v. Texas-Ohio GAS Co.
  218 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1955-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction and granted a preliminary injunction in an interpleader action, even though the plaintiff did not deposit all disputed shares into court.
• Kaplan v. Helenhart Novelty Corp.
  182 F.2d 311· 2d Cir.· 1950-05-05 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction before trial on the merits, as there was no substantial evidence of bad faith in the defendants' assertions of patent infringement.
• Mercer v. Keynton
  99 Fla. 914· Fla.· 1930-04-23 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  Homer and Mattie Mercer sought an injunction to prevent defendants from constructing an automotive garage and filling station on adjacent property in violation of restrictive covenants in the Bayonne Subdivision of Miami. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denia
• E. N. Holt as Tax Collector of Clay Cnty. v. Hillman-Sutherland Co.
  56 Fla. 801· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves an appeal from two interlocutory orders: one granting a temporary injunction and the other overruling a demurrer. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding the bill of complaint had sufficient equity to withstand the demurrer and that no abuse of discre
• Hall v. Horne
  52 Fla. 510· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 24×·via Temporary Injunction
  Hall & Bigham appealed from an equity court's grant of a temporary injunction and restraining order against them regarding turpentine boxes. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the bill stated no cause for equitable relief because appellees lacked standing and failed
• Ballard v. Eckman & Vetsburg
  20 Fla. 661· Fla.· 1884-01-01 ·cited 24×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  In this equity case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree finding fraudulent conveyance where creditors alleged that L. M. Ballard sold his mercantile stock to his brother H. D. Ballard to defraud creditors. The court held that the evidence did not support the fraud allega
• Belize Telecom, Ltd. v. Gov't OF Belize
  528 F.3d 1298· 11th Cir.· 2008-05-28 ·cited 23×
  Belize Telecom and Innovative Communications Company appealed a district court judgment that upheld the Government of Belize's removal of six directors from the BTL board, arguing the Government breached their share pledge and payment agreements and the BTL Articles of Associatio
• Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger
  927 So. 2d 243· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-05-05 ·cited 23×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  VALIC appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction against a former employee who violated a nonsolicitation agreement by soliciting customers and taking confidential information to a competitor. The court reversed, holding that Florida's statutory presumption of irreparable har
• NET First Nat'l Bank v. First Telebanc Corp.
  834 So. 2d 944· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-01-22 ·cited 23×·via Temporary Injunction
  Net First National Bank executives and shareholders appeal a temporary injunction that prevented them from acting as directors of the Bank and its holding company. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the lower court abused its discretion by granting the inj
• Estuardo Ramon Estrada Escudero v. Hasbun
  689 So. 2d 1144· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-02-26 ·cited 23×·via Temporary Injunction
  Estuardo Escudero appeals the denial of his motion to dissolve a temporary injunction preventing him from withdrawing funds allegedly belonging to his estranged wife, Silvia Hasbun, under Florida's Civil Theft Statute. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that a c
• Future Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Tae Il Media, Ltd.
  944 F. Supp. 1538· S.D. Fla.· 1996-07-18 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate a probable right to possession of the disputed equipment, thus denying the motion for a prejudgment writ of replevin.
• Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy
  641 So. 2d 103· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-02-15 ·cited 23×·via Temporary Injunction
  Lovell Farms sought a temporary injunction to prevent a former employee from working for a competitor and using alleged trade secrets in flower growing techniques. The court affirmed the denial of the temporary injunction but granted certiorari, quashing the denial of a protectiv
• Landano v. Rafferty
  897 F.2d 661· 3d Cir.· 1990-02-27 ·cited 23×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, arguing that the new evidence did not fundamentally alter the legal claim already considered by the state courts.
• Mirtha Lopez-Ortiz v. Centrust Sav. Bank
  546 So. 2d 1126· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-07-18 ·cited 23×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted because the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law and the complaint did not state grounds for equitable relief.
• The Republic OF THE Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos
  862 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-01 ·cited 23×
• In re the Application of Michael J. Kingsley for the Return of Seized Prop.
  802 F.2d 571· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the government's seizure of the appellant's home and its contents was unlawful due to constitutional violations, and the district court improperly avoided ruling on these issues.
• Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Beemik Builders & Constructors, Inc.
  487 So. 2d 372· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-04-18 ·cited 23×·via Temporary Injunction
  Jacksonville Electric Authority appeals from a temporary injunction preventing it from canceling a construction contract with Beemik Builders. The court holds that the temporary injunction was incorrectly issued because Beemik failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, as money da
• Mike Smith Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Smith
  486 So. 2d 89· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-04-10 ·cited 23×
  A minority stockholder and employee is not entitled to an injunction to reinstate or maintain their former position as a corporate manager.
• Hanson Tr. PLC v. SCM Corp.
  774 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that Hanson's private purchases of SCM stock, made after terminating its tender offer, did not constitute a "tender offer" under the Williams Act because the sellers were sophisticated and not subject to the type of pressure the Act aims to prevent.
• Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Chems.
  773 F.2d 1230· Fed. Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 23×
  A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo by preventing future trespasses, and the patentee's right to exclude others justifies injunctive relief even if monetary damages are possible.
• ON/TV OF Chicago v. Julien
  763 F.2d 839· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 23×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the defendant's sale of decoder kits capable of unscrambling subscription television signals likely violated Section 605 of the Communications Act, and a preliminary injunction was appropriate.
• Silvers v. Dis-Com Sec., Inc.
  403 So. 2d 1133· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-09-23 ·cited 23×·via Temporary Injunction
  Dis-Com Securities obtained a temporary injunction preventing employee Ann Silvers from working for a competing securities firm in violation of a covenant not to compete. The court affirmed the injunction, establishing that covenants not to compete can be enforced by injunction w
• Firefighters Inst. FOR Racial Equal. v. The City OF ST. Louis
  616 F.2d 350· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-17 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the promotional examination valid under EEOC guidelines, as it lacked sufficient empirical evidence of validity and had an adverse impact on black candidates.
• Nat'l Airlines v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  416 F.2d 998· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-23 ·cited 23×
  The court held that while the carrier's resort to self-help was justified due to an unmanageable wildcat strike, the mass discharge of strikers exceeded permissible bounds; reinstatement rights depend on whether strikers were replaced.
• Robins v. Rarback
  325 F.2d 929· 2d Cir.· 1963-12-26 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated no valid claim for relief under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act regarding electoral abuses, affirming dismissal of that claim, but reversed the dismissal of the claim regarding improper discipline.
• Suntrust Banks, Inc. v. Cauthon & McGUIGAN, PLC
  78 So. 3d 709· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-02-02 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  SunTrust Banks appeals a trial court's order granting a temporary injunction requiring it to return seized funds from a law firm's client trust account after a fraudulent check was deposited. The appellate court reversed, holding that the law firm failed to establish the necessar
• Reese v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  686 F. Supp. 2d 1291· S.D. Fla.· 2009-10-15 ·cited 22×
  The court granted motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to state claims for rescission under TILA, fraud in the inducement, and under the Florida Fair Lending Act due to insufficient pleading and statutory limitations.
• Infinity Radio Inc. v. Whitby
  780 So. 2d 248· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-02-21 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the 1999 amendment constituted a new agreement that incorporated the 1995 non-compete clause by reference, entitling Infinity to enforce it.
• Bankers Ins. Co. v. Fla. Residential Prop. & Cas. Joint Underwriting Ass'n
  689 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-02-25 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  Bankers Insurance Company appealed the denial of its request for a temporary injunction against FRPCJUA's decision to select different servicing carriers. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that Bankers failed to exhaust available administrati
• Gold Coast Chem. Corp. v. Goldberg
  668 So. 2d 326· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-02-21 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  Gold Coast Chemical Corporation's appeal of the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction to enforce a non-compete covenant against a former employee was dismissed because Gold Coast failed to demonstrate clear abuse of discretion.
• Frio ICE, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc.
  918 F.2d 154· 11th Cir.· 1990-11-30 ·cited 22×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction under PACA to entertain injunctive actions by private parties to enforce payment from a statutory trust, and possess the authority to order segregation of trust assets to prevent dissipation.
• Chicago Title Ins. Agency OF LEE Cnty., Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
  560 So. 2d 296· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-04-18 ·cited 22×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  Chicago Title Insurance Agency of Lee County appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss and a preliminary mandatory injunction requiring it to cease using the word "Chicago" in its business name. The court reversed the injunction, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable in
• Portland Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Advocates FOR Life, Inc.
  859 F.2d 681· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was not impermissibly vague and did not abridge protected First Amendment rights, though it modified the noise provisions to require substantial interference.
• Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige
  844 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting preliminary injunctions without properly considering irreparable harm to the government and the public interest, and without sufficient findings of irreparable harm to the owners and crew.
• Curtis v. Thompson
  840 F.2d 1291· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred by denying a preliminary injunction without addressing all five required factors, particularly given the constitutional nature of the claims.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Dixon
  835 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-28 ·cited 22×
  A preliminary injunction freezing assets is permissible to secure equitable remedies like restitution, especially when the public interest is involved and the assets are alleged ill-gotten gains.
• Johnson Chem. Co., Inc. v. Home Care Prods., Inc.
  823 F.2d 28· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-07 ·cited 22×
  A plaintiff's voluntary dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i) should not be vacated based solely on the defendant's incurred costs or the shift in bargaining positions, absent the extreme circumstances present in Harvey Aluminum.
• Vaughan Mfg. Co. v. Brikam Int'l, Inc.
  814 F.2d 346· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction for trade dress infringement, finding sufficient evidence of secondary meaning and non-functionality.
• Wheaton Indus. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  781 F.2d 354· 3d Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 22×
  Judicial review of EPA actions under CERCLA is not available until the EPA files a cost recovery action, and this preclusion also bars review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Olin Water Servs. v. Midland Research Labs., Inc.
  774 F.2d 303· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 22×
  The appeal from the preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the injunctions have expired and the issues are not preserved for appeal, requiring a trial on the merits.
• Frazier v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF Nw. Miss. Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  765 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Lifetron's personnel decisions were not state action for purposes of a § 1983 claim, but reversed the dismissal of the § 504 Rehabilitation Act claim, finding Lifetron was a program benefiting from federal financial assistance.
• In re DeLOREAN Motor Co. v. John Z. DeLOREAN (83-1802)
  755 F.2d 1223· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a bankruptcy court's order to escrow sale proceeds, intended to preserve assets for investigation, was a valid preliminary injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, not an attachment governed by state law.
• Reuben Palmer v. City OF Chicago
  755 F.2d 560· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiffs have standing to seek preliminary injunctive relief to preserve evidence, and that principles of comity and the Younger doctrine do not bar such relief.
• La. World Exposition, Inc. v. Logue
  746 F.2d 1033· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a "minute order" making a preliminary injunction permanent satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, granting appellate jurisdiction, and that the district court's finding of likelihood of confusion was not clearly erroneous.
• Ramirez-Osorio v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  745 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the dissent's arguments regarding prior injunctions and due process were not properly before the court on appeal.