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

• Lydo Enters., Inc. v. City OF LAS Vegas
  745 F.2d 1211· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 22×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the balance of hardships did not decidedly tip in favor of the appellees and they failed to present serious litigation questions regarding their First Amendment claims.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Warner Commc'ns Inc.
  742 F.2d 1156· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying an incorrect legal standard and improperly relying on Bureau of Economics memoranda, and that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted to block the proposed joint venture.
• Freixenet, S.A. v. Admiral Wine & Liquor Co.
  731 F.2d 148· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-28 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no clear error in the district court's determination of dissimilar labels and lack of consumer confusion. The appeal from the partial summary judgment was dismissed as not a final order.
• Action Elec. & Repair, Inc. v. Batelli
  416 So. 2d 888· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-07-14 ·cited 22×
  Action Electric sought review of a preliminary injunction that froze its assets pending resolution of a breach of promissory note claim. The court held that injunctive relief cannot be used as a substitute for attachment in a simple damages action for breach of contract, and vaca
• Beltran v. Beverlee A. Myers
  677 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against California's transfer of assets rule for medical assistance eligibility, finding it likely preempted by federal law.
• Sentry Ins. v. Dunn
  411 So. 2d 336· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enter a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement, as irreparable injury may be presumed in such cases.
• DeLISI v. Smith
  401 So. 2d 925· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-07-29 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  A party seeking to sustain an ex parte temporary injunction in a RICO forfeiture action bears the burden of proving sufficient facts at the first hearing directed to the propriety of the order, requiring prima facie proof that the restrained property was used in, intended for, de
• Societe Generale de Surveillance, S.A. v. Raytheon European Mgmt. & Sys. Co.
  643 F.2d 863· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act applies, but the district court had the authority to enjoin arbitration in Massachusetts. The court affirmed the district court's decision that Change Order No. 8 was part of the Basic Contract, and that the dispute should be resolv
• Ciechon v. City OF Chicago
  634 F.2d 1055· 7th Cir.· 1980-11-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Due Process Clause does not require a full hearing prior to the suspension of public employees for violation of a residency ordinance, as long as a prompt post-suspension hearing is assured.
• Adoption HOT Line, Inc. v. State
  385 So. 2d 682· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-06-10 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  A trial court properly exercises its discretion in granting a temporary injunction against an allegedly unlicensed child-placing agency where there is a demonstrated probability of irreparable injury to the public from potential black-market baby placements and improper child pla
• Geiger v. City OF Eagan
  618 F.2d 26· 8th Cir.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague on its face because it failed to provide fair notice of what was prohibited and lacked standards for enforcement.
• Manning v. Trs. OF Tufts Coll.
  613 F.2d 1200· 1st Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 22×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction and the denial of a motion to vacate judgment, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Seaboard World Airlines, Inc. v. Tiger Int'l, Inc.
  600 F.2d 355· 2d Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge holds that the majority erred in finding no violation of Section 14(e) of the Williams Act, asserting that Tiger's tender offer was materially misleading by downplaying the liquidation value of Seaboard's stock.
• Nicodemus v. Chrysler Corp.
  596 F.2d 152· 6th Cir.· 1979-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction because the district judge's conduct and remarks during the hearing demonstrated bias and a lack of impartiality, requiring remand to a different judge.
• Consumers Union OF the United States, Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n
  590 F.2d 1209· D.C. Cir.· 1978-12-22 ·cited 22×
  A prior judgment in a reverse-Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit does not bar subsequent FOIA suits by requesters who were not parties to the prior litigation.
• Emilien Levesque v. State OF Me.
  587 F.2d 78· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-22 ·cited 22×
  The denial of a temporary restraining order is appealable when it effectively denies a preliminary injunction and forecloses further interlocutory relief.
• Tracy v. Salamack
  572 F.2d 393· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while inmates have a due process right to a hearing before removal from a temporary release program, the state can alter the underlying law creating the entitlement, and the commissioner must conduct a good faith evaluation after the hearing.
• Jo-Ann Evans Gardner v. Westinghouse Broad. Co.
  559 F.2d 209· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-06 ·cited 22×
  The denial of class certification is not an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not directly deny injunctive relief and remains reviewable after final judgment. A named plaintiff may still have standing to appeal such a denial, even after receiving
• Drywall Tapers AND Pointers OF Greater NEW York v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Int'l Ass'n OF the United States & Canada
  537 F.2d 669· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the 1961 Memorandum between the unions falls within § 301(a) of the LMRA, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not preclude injunctive relief for its breach, affirming the preliminary injunction as modified.
• Ammond v. McGAHN
  532 F.2d 325· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the record failed to show imminent and irreparable harm, which is a prerequisite for granting a preliminary injunction.
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  534 F.2d 708· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying dissolution of a preliminary injunction is rendered moot and will be dismissed if a final decree has since been entered that makes the preliminary injunction permanent.
• Marshel v. AFW Fabric Corp.
  533 F.2d 1277· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 22×
• Airco, Inc. v. Energy Research & Dev. Admin.
  528 F.2d 1294· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the agency's decision to reopen negotiations had a reasonable basis and was entitled to judicial deference, and that the successful bidder's proposal was responsive.
• Royal Steubing v. Brinegar
  511 F.2d 489· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly issued to halt construction of a federally-funded expressway bridge pending preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA, despite claims of laches and advanced construction stages.
• 414 Theater Corp. v. Murphy
  499 F.2d 1155· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-17 ·cited 22×
• Shapiro v. Sec'y OF State
  499 F.2d 527· D.C. Cir.· 1974-05-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court prematurely dismissed the complaint seeking to enjoin a jeopardy assessment, as the taxpayer should have been allowed an opportunity to develop facts showing the assessment lacked a factual foundation or was arbitrary.
• Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  497 F.2d 311· 4th Cir.· 1974-05-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the dispute over whether the union's actions constituted a strike or protected refusal to cross a picket line was arbitrable, but the injunction against individual members was improper.
• Boston M. Chance v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF NEW York
  496 F.2d 820· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-12 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's modification of a preliminary injunction allowing permanent appointments under an interim system, finding it did not violate state law or equity principles, and affirmed the denial of a motion to intervene.
• Beavers v. Conner
  258 So. 2d 330· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-22 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this equity case involving a Panamanian corporation, the trial court found that appellants wrongfully acquired the appellee's stock and operating certificate, valued at $125,000, and awarded the appellee 85% of that value. The appellate court affirmed the equity judgment but r
• Sackett v. City OF Coral Gables
  246 So. 2d 162· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-03-23 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  Sackett, a property owner adjacent to the Cocoplum Properties, sought a temporary injunction to prevent the City of Coral Gables from further considering a proposed zoning amendment. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the temporary injunction, holding that courts
• Nor-Am Agric. Prods., Inc. v. Hardin
  435 F.2d 1151· 7th Cir.· 1970-11-09 ·cited 22×
• Butler Aviation Int'l, Inc. v. Comprehensive Designers, Inc.
  425 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1970-01-08 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the district court's assessment of the impact of misstatements was exaggerated, the misstatements themselves warranted affirming the preliminary injunction against the exchange offer.
• Tele-Controls, Inc. v. Ford Indus., Inc.
  388 F.2d 48· 7th Cir.· 1967-12-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• N. OIL Co., Inc. v. Socony Mobil OIL Co., Inc.
  347 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-17 ·cited 22×·via Injunction Pendente Lite
  The court held that the admission of hearsay testimony from a corporate employee, without a sufficient showing of his authority to make the statement on behalf of the corporation, was prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• Graham v. Triangle Publ'ns
  344 F.2d 775· 3d Cir.· 1965-04-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the refusal to grant a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because no imminent threat of irreparable damage was shown.
• Bergen Drug Co. Inc. v. Parke
  307 F.2d 725· 3d Cir.· 1962-08-29 ·cited 22×
  A district court possesses equity power to issue a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo in an antitrust action, even if the ultimate relief sought is damages, especially when a party's conduct, like terminating a business relationship, appears retaliatory and designe
• Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Arnease Ludley
  252 F.2d 372· 5th Cir.· 1958-02-13 ·cited 22×·via Temporary Injunction
  A Louisiana statute requiring a certificate of eligibility and good moral character, signed by local officials, to enter higher education institutions is unconstitutional because it grants unfettered discretion to officials and implicitly uses race as a standard, violating the Fo
• Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Hattie A. Johnson
  242 F.2d 45· 5th Cir.· 1957-03-01 ·cited 22×
  The appellate court affirmed the interlocutory injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting it to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Am. Wholesale Co.
  235 F.2d 606· 7th Cir.· 1956-10-12 ·cited 22×
  A preliminary injunction should not be granted solely on conflicting affidavits when credibility is at issue and oral testimony is needed.
• Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. NEW CUT Rate Liquors, Inc.
  221 F.2d 815· 7th Cir.· 1955-04-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo, and the form of the injunction order complied with procedural rules.
• Huber Baking Co. v. Stroehmann Bros. Co.
  208 F.2d 464· 2d Cir.· 1953-12-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion due to significant uncertainties regarding the parties' rights and the lack of demonstrated irreparable harm.
• Home Loan Bank Bd. v. Mallonee
  196 F.2d 336· 9th Cir.· 1952-04-02 ·cited 22×
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Rhodes Pharmacal Co., Inc.
  191 F.2d 744· 7th Cir.· 1951-07-05 ·cited 22×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action and denying the injunction based on debatable questions when the standard for a preliminary injunction under § 13(a) requires only reasonable cause to believe violations occurred.
• City of Jacksonville v. Giller
  102 Fla. 92· Fla.· 1931-06-23 ·cited 22×·via Injunction Pendente Lite
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld an interlocutory injunction protecting the Gillers' possession of real property and buildings they occupied under a lease, holding that the City of Jacksonville could not interfere with their actual possession without following proper legal proced
• Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. SEA TOW Servs. Int'l, Inc.
  778 So. 2d 510· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-02-28 ·cited 21×·via Temporary Injunction
  Offshore Marine Towing appealed a temporary injunction granted against it in a suit between competing marine assistance companies. The court affirmed the injunction on the merits but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the injunction bond amount, as required by Florida Rule of
• Coastal Unilube, Inc. v. Smith
  598 So. 2d 200· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-05-06 ·cited 21×·via Temporary Injunction
  Coastal Unilube challenges a trial court's dissolution of a temporary injunction enforcing a non-compete agreement against a former employee. The court reversed, holding that continued employment constitutes adequate consideration for a covenant not to compete in an at-will emplo
• Hathcock v. Hathcock
  533 So. 2d 802· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-09-29 ·cited 21×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court reversed a temporary injunction issued in a marital dissolution proceeding because it was granted without compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. The injunction prohibited the husband from disposing of marital property, harassing his wife, and awarded the
• Sudomir v. McMAHON
  767 F.2d 1456· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 21×
  The Secretary's interpretation of 'permanently residing in the United States under color of law' is unreasonable as applied to asylum applicants awaiting a final decision, and these plaintiffs are eligible for benefits.
• Humboldt OIL Co., Inc. v. Exxon Co.
  695 F.2d 386· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), a "conviction" for purposes of termination includes a conviction by the trial court, even if an appeal is pending.
• United Church OF THE Med. Ctr. v. Med. Ctr. Comm'n
  689 F.2d 693· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief.