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

• Munoz v. Cnty. OF Imperial
  667 F.2d 811· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the federal injunction because the plaintiffs were "strangers" to the state court proceedings, and the preliminary injunction was properly granted.
• Musidor v. Great Am. Screen
  658 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-21 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the criminal contempt convictions, holding that the prosecution by civil litigant's counsel did not violate due process and that a jury trial was not required for the offenses as charged.
• Town OF Burlington & the Sch. Comm. of the Town of Burlington v. The Dep't OF Educ. OF the Commonwealth OF Mass. & John Doe
  655 F.2d 428· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 21×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that state law cannot be applied when federal law review is sought, and that the district court erred in ordering reimbursement for past educational expenses under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(3).
• Cefalo v. Elwood Moffett
  449 F.2d 1193· D.C. Cir.· 1971-09-03 ·cited 21×
  The appellate court modified a preliminary injunction to allow a union convention to authorize a referendum on a merger, conditioned on district court approval and consideration of the Secretary of Labor's input, to ensure a free and informed vote.
• Cunningham v. Hester Dozer
  159 So. 2d 105· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-12-23 ·cited 21×·via Temporary Injunction
  Municipal officers sought to enjoin recall proceedings against them. The trial court dissolved a temporary injunction that had halted the recall election, and the officers appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
• Janousek v. Doyle
  313 F.2d 916· 8th Cir.· 1963-02-20 ·cited 21×
  The filing of an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a preliminary injunction does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with other matters, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
• Retail, Wholesale & Dep't Store Union, AFL-CIO v. Rains
  266 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-30 ·cited 21×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in preserving the status quo pending the Board's final determination.
• SAX Enters., Inc. v. Hotel Emps. Union Local NO. 255 (A. F. of L.) & Albert H. Berlin
  80 So. 2d 602· Fla.· 1955-05-27 ·cited 21×·via Temporary Injunction
  Sax Enterprises sought a temporary injunction against a hotel union's picketing of its Miami Beach hotel, alleging the picketing was for an unlawful purpose and involved violence. The Florida Supreme Court held that the chancellor erred in deferring the question of whether the pi
• State v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  19 F.4th 1271· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-06 ·cited 20×
  Florida challenged a federal interim rule mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers at Medicare and Medicaid facilities, arguing the rule exceeded the Secretary's statutory authority, violated notice-and-comment procedures, and was arbitrary and capricious. The Eleve
• Forrest v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc.
  73 So. 3d 269· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-06-29 ·cited 20×·via Temporary Injunction
  A law firm representing defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action posted video depositions of nonparty witnesses on YouTube without their consent. The trial court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting further posting. The appellate court upheld the injunction as a proper ex
• Instituto De Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc.
  485 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 2007-05-25 ·cited 20×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied because the case was a 'covered class action' preempted by SLUSA, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with prior orders.
• Pope v. Pope
  901 So. 2d 352· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-05-05 ·cited 20×·via Temporary Injunction
  William Pope appeals a final judgment extending a temporary domestic violence injunction for six months without allowing him to present evidence or witnesses. The court reversed, holding that due process requires a full evidentiary hearing where both parties can present their cas
• Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.
  148 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 2001-05-24 ·cited 20×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court denied Del Monte's motion for a preliminary injunction because Del Monte failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under either the threatened or inevitable disclosure theories of trade secret misappropriation.
• Benemerito & Flores, M.D.'S, P.A. v. Zeidy Roche, M.D.
  751 So. 2d 91· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-12-29 ·cited 20×·via Temporary Injunction
  A medical professional association appealed the denial of a temporary injunction against a former employee physician who opened a competing practice in violation of a covenant not to compete. The court affirmed the denial, finding the association materially breached the employmen
• Haas v. Zephyr Springs Golf Club, L.P.
  684 So. 2d 231· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-11-22 ·cited 20×·via Temporary Injunction
• Mendes v. Dowelanco Indus. Ltda.
  651 So. 2d 776· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-03-08 ·cited 20×·via Temporary Injunction
  A Brazilian corporation sued Brazilian defendants in Florida for embezzlement and related claims, obtaining a temporary injunction freezing bank accounts. The court stayed substantive proceedings to Brazil while maintaining jurisdiction over the frozen assets, but the appellate c
• SUN Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Indus.
  603 So. 2d 516· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-06-09 ·cited 20×·via Temporary Injunction
  Sun Elastic sought a temporary injunction against a former employee's violation of a noncompete agreement. The trial court denied the injunction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that direct solicitation of existing customers creates a presumption of irreparable injury u
• The Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Elman
  949 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction ordering the transfer of files, as the federal statute FIRREA supersedes the attorney's retaining lien under state law at this stage.
• Chicago Observer, Inc. v. City OF Chicago
  929 F.2d 325· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Chicago Observer had received adequate due process and that the city's ordinance regulating newsrack size and advertising was constitutional.
• In re Sonnax Indus., Inc. v. TRI Component Prods. Corp.
  907 F.2d 1280· 2d Cir.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that denial of a motion to lift the automatic stay in bankruptcy is a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
• Murray v. Silberstein
  882 F.2d 61· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·cited 20×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the appellant is judicially estopped from seeking damages after previously arguing that damages were unavailable and obtaining injunctive relief based on that argument.
• Sierra Club v. Marsh
  872 F.2d 497· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-31 ·cited 20×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The Supreme Court's decision in Village of Gambell did not overrule or significantly modify the First Circuit's prior holding in Watt regarding the type of harm cognizable under NEPA for preliminary injunction purposes.
• Consol. Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A.
  871 F.2d 252· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 20×
  A takeover target must demonstrate antitrust injury to have standing to challenge a takeover under Section 16 of the Clayton Act.
• N.A.A.C.P. (National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People) v. City OF Mansfield
  866 F.2d 162· 6th Cir.· 1989-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction for police hiring, finding no abuse of discretion, but remanded the fire department injunction due to subsequent events casting doubt on the harm analysis.
• Charles OF THE Ritz Grp. Ltd. v. Quality King Distribs., Inc.
  832 F.2d 1317· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-03 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny disclaimer relief, finding no abuse of discretion in enjoining the use of the trademark.
• The Chicago Bd. OF Realtors, Inc. v. The City OF Chicago
  819 F.2d 732· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their constitutional challenges to the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.
• Am. Greetings Corp. & CPG Prods., Inc. v. Dan-Dee Imports, Inc.
  807 F.2d 1136· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while a combination of features including functional ones can be protectible trade dress, an injunction cannot practically foreclose the use of functional features. The preliminary injunction was vacated due to vagueness and potential overbreadth.
• W. Publ'g Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc.
  799 F.2d 1219· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that West's arrangement of cases in its National Reporter System publications is copyrightable, and MDC's proposed 'star pagination' feature infringes upon that copyright.
• United States v. Lulac
  793 F.2d 636· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction without adequately assessing the validity of the PPST and its relationship to the State's legitimate interests, and vacated the injunction.
• Dynamics Corp. OF Am. v. CTS Corp.
  794 F.2d 250· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 20×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court correctly granted a preliminary injunction against CTS's poison pill, finding it likely violated Indiana law by not being plausibly related to shareholder wealth maximization and was adopted without adequate investigation.
• Luvinia Alexander v. Louis Polk, M.D.
  750 F.2d 250· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the City violated notice and hearing requirements under regulations, stating a claim under section 1983.
• Raymon and Joann Lynch v. Rank
  747 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Pickle amendment requires states to apply a 'but for' test to determine eligibility, meaning individuals are eligible for Medicaid if they would qualify for SSI but for OASDI cost-of-living increases, regardless of other reasons for past SSI ineligibility.
• Edudata Corp. v. Sci. Computers, Inc.
  746 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-12 ·cited 20×
  The court dismissed the appeal from the denial of a temporary restraining order for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the order suspending the tender offer, finding it to be a preliminary injunction. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's balancing of equi
• Kendrick v. Bland
  740 F.2d 432· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its authority by imposing an overly intrusive remedy that disqualified specific officers without sufficient individualized findings and in light of the parties' prior cooperation and consent decree.
• Tate v. Frey
  735 F.2d 986· 6th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against state corrections officials, as the injunction was based on federal constitutional violations and not solely state law, thus avoiding Eleventh Amendment concerns raise
• W. Va. Ass'n OF Cmty. Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Heckler
  734 F.2d 1570· D.C. Cir.· 1984-05-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while appellants have standing, their claims regarding FY83 funds are moot because all funds have been disbursed, and it declines to reach the merits of FY84 claims due to procedural issues and potential mootness.
• Arthur Guinness & Sons, PLC v. Sterling Publ'g Co., Inc.
  732 F.2d 1095· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Guinness's motion for a preliminary injunction because Guinness failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Veronice A. Holt v. The Cont'l Grp., Inc.
  708 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of the complaint warranted further consideration, particularly regarding the issue of irreparable harm in a retaliatory discharge claim.
• Syntex Ophthalmics, Inc. v. Tsuetaki
  701 F.2d 677· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-02 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction and its subsequent interpretation, finding no abuse of discretion in its issuance or scope.
• Mercury Coal & Coke, Inc. v. Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corp.
  696 F.2d 315· 4th Cir.· 1982-12-22 ·cited 20×
  A forum selection clause in a contract is enforceable even if not explicitly negotiated, provided it is not unreasonable, unjust, or invalid due to fraud or overreaching.
• Vander Malle v. Ambach
  673 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction requiring the state to pay for the handicapped child's interim placement, finding a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Mass. Ass'n FOR Retarded Citizens, Inc. v. King
  668 F.2d 602· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the consent decrees did not override the charge-for-care statute, finding it unlikely that plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their claim that the statute was unlawful.
• White Mountain Apache Tribe v. State OF Ariz.
  649 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 20×
  State regulation of non-Indians hunting/fishing on reservations is permissible if it serves a valid conservation purpose and does not unduly interfere with federal or tribal interests, particularly when the state has a strong regulatory interest.
• Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus
  627 F.2d 1238· D.C. Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 20×
  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not obligate the Secretary of the Interior to prepare an environmental impact statement when he does not act to prevent a state from conducting a wildlife hunt on federal land, as this inaction does not constitute a 'major Federal
• Robustiano Puga & Medmolds, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corp.
  374 So. 2d 552· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-07-31 ·cited 20×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the trial court's grant of a temporary injunction enforcing a non-competitive agreement under Florida Statutes § 542.12(2), finding the defendants failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion and that irreparable injury was adequately shown.
• Watch (Waterbury Action TO Conserve OUR Heritage Incorporated) v. Harris
  603 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 20×
• NEW England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. Univ. OF Colo.
  592 F.2d 1196· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar enjoining state university agents from unlawful and tortious conduct in seeking to contract with a coach, and that the coach is not an indispensable party to the suit.
• City OF Anaheim v. Kleppe
  590 F.2d 285· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-13 ·cited 20×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the cities failed to establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits, as prior cases relied upon were inapposite due to the absence of competing offers at the ti
• Knights OF the KU Klux Klan v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd.
  578 F.2d 1122· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a state agency cannot condition the off-time use of public school facilities on the political or ideological views of the applicant, as this violates the First Amendment. A temporary injunction was granted.
• David Zbaraz, M.D. v. Quern
  572 F.2d 582· 7th Cir.· 1978-03-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from hearing the case, as a state court construction of the statute was unlikely to moot the federal claims or materially alter the constitutional questions presented.