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

• United States v. Cappetto
  502 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1974-09-04 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the civil remedies provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (RICO) is constitutional, a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power, and that the district court did not err in issuing a preliminary injunction, default judgment, and contempt order.
• Gulf & W. Indus., Inc. v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  476 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-12 ·cited 96×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the consummation of a tender offer, as the plaintiff (A&P) demonstrated a probability of success on the merits regarding antitrust and securities law violations.
• United States v. Hayes Int'l Corp.
  415 F.2d 1038· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-19 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction, as the transfer program and new collective bargaining agreement did not fully correct the pervasive pattern of racial discrimination violating Title VII.
• United States v. Lambert
  695 F.2d 536· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 93×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a prerequisite for such relief.
• The Vision Ctr. v. Opticks, Inc.
  596 F.2d 111· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-23 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the phrase 'Vision Center' is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning, thus not entitling the plaintiff to trade name protection against Opticks' use of 'Pearle Vision Center'.
• Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  545 F.2d 1336· 3d Cir.· 1976-11-15 ·cited 93×
  The court must reverse the district court's injunction order based on controlling precedent, but the concurring judge disagrees with the doctrine that all coercive civil contempt orders fail if the underlying order is invalid.
• Ring v. Spina
  148 F.2d 647· 2d Cir.· 1945-03-19 ·cited 93×
  The court held that the Guild's Minimum Basic Agreement, with its restrictive provisions, likely violates the Sherman Act and that the plaintiff's signing under economic coercion does not preclude him from seeking relief. The denial of a preliminary injunction was reversed.
• The Del. & Hudson Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union
  450 F.2d 603· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-31 ·cited 92×
  The court held that after the Railway Labor Act's procedures are exhausted and bargaining reaches an impasse, a union may lawfully conduct selective strikes against some carriers to exert economic pressure for a national agreement.
• Societe Comptoir DE L'Industrie Cotonniere Etablissements Boussac v. Alexander's Dep't Stores, Inc.
  299 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1962-02-14 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctions because the defendant truthfully advertised copied garments and there was no clear showing of public deception or confusion as to source or sponsorship.
• Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  203 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1953-03-16 ·cited 92×
  The court held that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) was ineffective because it occurred after significant proceedings and the merits had been addressed, and that the denial of an injunction against foreign proceedings was also erroneous.
• Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin
  482 So. 2d 486· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-01-21 ·cited 91×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case addresses whether an employer seeking to enforce non-competition covenants is entitled to a temporary injunction when the employer has itself breached the employment contract. The court held that an employer's material breach of an employment contract is a relevant fact
• Gresham Park Cmty. Org. v. Howell
  652 F.2d 1227· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 91×
  The court held that abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate, requiring dismissal of the federal suit seeking to enjoin state court proceedings, even though the state court's injunction was immediately enforceable and created state action.
• Sargent v. Genesco, Inc.
  492 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-11 ·cited 90×
• Checker Motors Corp. v. Chrysler Corp. & Chrysler Motors Corp.
  405 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-06 ·cited 90×
  The court held that Chrysler's rebate plan was not per se illegal price-fixing under the Sherman Act and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Donovan v. Loran W. Robbins
  752 F.2d 1170· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred in not approving the settlement agreement because ERISA permits equitable contribution among co-trustees, and the comparative fault rule discussed by the majority is inapplicable and unnecessary dicta.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. U.S. OIL & GAS Corp.
  748 F.2d 1431· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-15 ·cited 89×
  The district court has the inherent equitable power to grant ancillary relief, including freezing assets and appointing a receiver, as an incident to its statutory authority to issue a permanent injunction under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co.
  660 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 89×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings that the acquisition and non-compete covenants did not violate antitrust laws, upholding the standard of review for factual findings.
• Wilson v. Thompson
  593 F.2d 1375· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-01 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the state had no substantive interest in renewed prosecution was not clearly erroneous, and that the reactivation of prosecutions solely in response to a civil suit was tantamount to a finding of bad faith.
• Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco
  490 F.2d 1334· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-15 ·cited 89×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The dissent argues that a stock dividend, absent consideration, does not constitute a 'purchase or sale' under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and that the majority's interpretation is unprecedented and contradicts established precedent.
• Blackwell v. Issaquena Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  363 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-21 ·cited 88×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the school regulation forbidding the wearing of 'freedom buttons' was reasonable and necessary for maintaining school discipline, given the significant disruptions caused by the students' conduct.
• Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp. v. The Poster Exch., Inc.
  305 F.2d 647· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-11 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying summary judgment because material issues of fact remained, and affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction.
• Am. Hosp. Supply Corp. & Am. v. Mueller
  780 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 87×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding that the distributor demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm due to the supplier's insolvency and that the district court properly balanced the harms.
• Commonwealth of Pa. v. Rizzo
  530 F.2d 501· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-21 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the denial of intervention was timely and that parties not of record cannot appeal the merits of the case.
• Rosemont Enters., Inc. v. Random House, Inc.
  366 F.2d 303· 2d Cir.· 1966-08-17 ·cited 87×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should have been denied because the plaintiff, Rosemont, lacked clean hands, having acquired copyrights primarily to suppress a biography of Howard Hughes rather than to protect the original writing.
• United States v. Theron C. Lynd
  301 F.2d 818· 5th Cir.· 1962-04-10 ·cited 87×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court granted a temporary injunction pending appeal, finding the trial court's refusal to grant an injunction was likely an abuse of discretion given the evidence of racial discrimination in voter registration.
• Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc.
  784 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 86×
  The court's opinion is consistent with traditional standards for granting or denying a preliminary injunction.
• Jack Kahn Music Co., Inc. v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co.
  604 F.2d 755· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 86×
  A preliminary injunction freezing a dealership into a non-revocable status is improper when the dealer fails to demonstrate a probability of irreparable injury and the balance of hardships does not decidedly tip in their favor.
• Oburn v. Shapp
  521 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction sought by white applicants challenging the Pennsylvania State Police's minority hiring goals.
• Amendments to the Fla. Fam. Law Rules of Procedure & Fam. Law Forms
  810 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 2000-09-21 ·cited 85×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure and Family Law Forms, with particular emphasis on creating separate domestic and repeat violence injunction forms for cases involving and not involving children, adding clarifying language
• Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc.
  538 F.2d 164· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 84×
  The court held that a plaintiff's EEOC charge, even if imperfectly filed, can support judicial complaints of discrimination if the allegations are like or reasonably related to those in the charge. Additionally, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 are independent of Title VII administr
• Md. - Nat'l Cap. Park & Planning Comm'n a Pub. body corporate v. U. S. Postal Serv.
  487 F.2d 1029· D.C. Cir.· 1973-08-23 ·cited 84×
  The court held that while the denial of a preliminary injunction is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, the NEPA issues were not adequately focused, necessitating a remand for further investigation by the district court.
• Carter v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  365 F.2d 486· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-17 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the district court properly invoked the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to refer the question of tariff validity to the FCC, and that the denial of a preliminary injunction was appealable.
• Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  423 So. 2d 927· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-16 ·cited 83×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The Ladners appealed a final judgment requiring them to restore their condominium terrace railing to comply with the Declaration of Condominium. The court held that the Association's enforcement action was not selective enforcement and that prior appellate dicta on the merits fro
• IIT v. Vencap, Ltd.
  519 F.2d 1001· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the district court's findings were insufficient to definitively determine subject matter jurisdiction or the probability of success on the merits for issuing a preliminary injunction.
• Denis Hanly v. Mitchell
  460 F.2d 640· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-17 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the General Services Administration (GSA) failed to adequately consider the environmental impact of the proposed jail, requiring further review under NEPA, but affirmed the dismissal of claims regarding the office building.
• Rothstein v. Wyman
  467 F.2d 226· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 82×
  A federal court cannot order state officials to make retroactive welfare payments from state funds, as this violates the Eleventh Amendment and is an improvident exercise of equity powers in the context of cooperative federalism.
• ELI Lilly & Co., Inc. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc.
  460 F.2d 1096· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-18 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, finding the patent valid and infringed, and that the procedural conduct of the trial court was not an abuse of discretion.
• Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Labs.
  207 F.2d 190· 9th Cir.· 1953-09-16 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against appellants for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
• Pagliero v. Wallace China Co.
  198 F.2d 339· 9th Cir.· 1952-07-01 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the Lanham Act does not protect against the imitation of functional designs, even if they have acquired secondary meaning, but may protect against the denominative use of trade names.
• DOE v. NEW York Univ.: John Sawhill
  666 F.2d 761· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction requiring NYU to readmit the plaintiff, but correctly denied NYU's motion for summary judgment.
• Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Brinke
  475 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1973-03-15 ·cited 81×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the stay order as part of an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, and that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was inapplicable to a suit brought under 49 U.S.C.A. § 1017(b)(2).
• Env't Def. Fund v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  468 F.2d 1164· 6th Cir.· 1972-12-13 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to ongoing federal projects, requiring an environmental impact statement even if construction began before NEPA's effective date, if significant environmental impacts are still anticipated.
• Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale
  107 Fla. 304· Fla.· 1932-11-25 ·cited 81×·via Temporary Injunction
  Minority stockholders of Orlando Orange Groves Company sought an injunction against the corporation and its managers for alleged mismanagement, improper fund withdrawals, and asset depletion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's grant of a temporary injunction, ho
• Snook v. Tr. Co. OF Ga. Bank OF Savannah, N.A.
  859 F.2d 865· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-07 ·cited 80×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because the plaintiffs were denied adequate opportunity for discovery, and the district court failed to rule on their motion to compel.
• Donovan v. Bierwirth
  680 F.2d 263· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 80×
  The court held that while corporate officers serving as pension plan trustees must act solely in the plan participants' interests, they do not violate their duties by incidentally benefiting the corporation if they conduct a careful, impartial investigation. However, their action
• Williams v. Alioto
  625 F.2d 845· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 80×
  The court held that appellees were prevailing parties entitled to attorneys' fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, even though the underlying appeal was dismissed as moot, and that the award against officials in their official capacities was proper and payable
• The State OF NEW York v. The Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n
  550 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 80×
  The court held that a violation of NEPA does not automatically constitute irreparable harm, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a sufficient threat of irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• The Wheelabrator Corp. v. Chafee
  455 F.2d 1306· D.C. Cir.· 1971-10-14 ·cited 80×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and the agency's decision not to negotiate was committed to agency discretion and not reviewable.
• Young v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Co.
  438 F.2d 757· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 80×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 applies to private employment discrimination and that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not deprive district courts of jurisdiction over § 1981 actions.
• Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of Am.
  364 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1966-07-14 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the union's loyalty oath, due to its vagueness, was an unreasonable and unlawful requirement for membership, and therefore the plaintiffs should be admitted to the union without signing it.