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

• Gen. Leaseways, Inc. v. Nat'l Truck Leasing Ass'n
  830 F.2d 716· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-18 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the jury's finding that General Leaseways bore substantially equal responsibility for the antitrust violations was supported by sufficient evidence, and that the jury instructions, despite a minor omission, conveyed the correct message.
• Camel Hair & Cashmere Inst. OF Am., Inc. v. Associated DRY Goods Corp.
  799 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue on behalf of its members for injunctive relief, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against Federated due to its good faith actions, while remanding for further consideration of irreparable harm for other defen
• Church OF Scientology Int'l v. The Elmira Mission OF THE Church OF Scientology
  794 F.2d 38· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 19×
  In a trademark licensor/licensee dispute, a finding of unlawful use and consumer confusion automatically establishes irreparable harm, warranting a preliminary injunction.
• Derrean Gresham & Metro Fair Hous. Servs. v. Windrush P'rs, Ltd.
  730 F.2d 1417· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that proof of discriminatory housing practices is sufficient to presume irreparable injury for preliminary injunction purposes, and affirmed the preliminary injunction with modifications for specificity.
• Silas Alexander v. Chicago Park Dist.
  709 F.2d 463· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting such relief at this preliminary stage.
• Pratte v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  683 F.2d 1038· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff's reliance on the government's job offer was unjustified, thus failing to establish a claim for equitable estoppel.
• Indep. Fed'n of Flight Attendants v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  655 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that TWA's centralization of crew scheduling operations, replacing manual records with a computerized system, did not constitute a substantial alteration of established working conditions or a violation of the collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor
• Weiner King, Inc. v. The Wiener King Corp.
  615 F.2d 512· C.C.P.A.· 1980-02-07 ·cited 19×
  The court held that while the appellee's expansion after notice of the appellant's mark was not per se in bad faith, the TTAB's procedural error in admitting disputed testimony required reversal on that point, but the overall TTAB decision was otherwise affirmed.
• Frejlach v. Butler
  573 F.2d 1026· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-10 ·cited 19×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Walker v. Providence Journal Co.
  493 F.2d 82· 1st Cir.· 1974-02-27 ·cited 19×
  The court held that while the plaintiff franchisee and franchisor had standing to seek injunctive relief, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for the preliminary injunction. The court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
• DOE v. Gen. Hosp. OF the Dist. OF Columbia
  434 F.2d 427· D.C. Cir.· 1970-05-15 ·cited 19×
  The court concurred in remanding the case, finding no merit to the contempt claim as the patient was not alleged to suffer from mental disease and requiring mental health processing for all abortion requests would be unreasonable.
• Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Town OF Hempstead
  398 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1968-07-17 ·cited 19×
  A local noise ordinance is invalid if it conflicts with federal regulations governing aircraft flight patterns and procedures, even if it purports to regulate noise.
• Mireille R. Alberti v. Mary Ruth Cruise
  383 F.2d 268· 4th Cir.· 1967-09-14 ·cited 19×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the injunction order was invalid due to non-compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) and 65(d), and potentially violated the First Amendment.
• Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A.
  205 F.2d 944· 9th Cir.· 1953-06-30 ·cited 19×·via Temporary Injunction
  In the absence of a posted bond or security, damages cannot be recovered for the wrongful issuance of a temporary injunction, even if granted without just cause.
• Nelson v. Clive Hansard
  143 Fla. 898· Fla.· 1940-08-02 ·cited 19×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court reviewed the propriety of a temporary injunction that restrained appellants from interfering with appellee's possession of land. The court found that the appellee's situation, leading to a judgment against him, was due to his own neglect and not a circumstance warrantin
• Harbor v. Lancaster
  70 Fla. 200· Fla.· 1915-07-13 ·cited 19×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an order denying the railway company's motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that restrained it from removing a dwelling house from church property. The court found the church trustees' bill of complaint failed to satisfy equity requirements
• William O. Murtagh, M.D. v. Hurley
  40 So. 3d 62· Fla. 2d DCA· 2010-07-07 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  Dr. Murtagh sought a temporary injunction to prevent his former patient Hurley from making allegedly defamatory statements to his patients and prospective patients, claiming tortious interference with business relationships. The court held that while injunctive relief is availabl
• Orseck v. Servicios Legales De Mesoamerica S. De R.L.
  699 F. Supp. 2d 1344· S.D. Fla.· 2010-03-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that federal statutory interpleader requirements were met, granting a preliminary injunction to restrain claimants and transferring the case to the Southern District of Texas.
• Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Adolfo Perez
  988 So. 2d 40· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-07-09 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) unless it determines the right to immediate possession of property, which this order did not.
• Nu-Vision, LLC v. Corporate Convenience, Inc.
  965 So. 2d 232· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-09-07 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  Nu-Vision sought certiorari review of an order dissolving a lis pendens filed on commercial real estate based on a purported option to purchase. The court held that Nu-Vision's December 16, 2004 letter could not support a claim for specific performance as a matter of law because
• Ware v. Polk Cnty.
  918 So. 2d 977· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-12-09 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  Paul Ware built a Quonset-type structure on his Polk County property without obtaining a required building permit in violation of county code. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County and denied the County's motion for a temporary injunction. The appellate court di
• Aerospace Welding, Inc. v. Southstream Exhaust & Welding, Inc.
  824 So. 2d 226· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-07-24 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  Aerospace Welding appeals from the dissolution of a temporary injunction and an award of attorney's fees to the defendant. The court affirmed, holding that the original injunction order violated Florida Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to specify reasons for entry and describe
• Nattassia Matin v. Hill
  801 So. 2d 1003· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-12-19 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of a mother's motion to dissolve an ex parte child pick-up order, holding that the mother was denied due process because the hearing on the motion to dissolve was not truly evidentiary and the father failed to pr
• Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Church & Tower, Inc.
  715 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-08-12 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  Miami-Dade County appealed the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction and staying its dissolution in a bid protest case involving Church & Tower (C&T). The appellate court reversed, holding that C&T failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the mer
• Mayor's Jewelers, Inc. v. State of Cal. Pub. Emps'. Ret. Sys.
  685 So. 2d 904· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-12-11 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court reversed a decision regarding a landlord's potential entitlement to a mandatory injunction for specific performance of a continuous operations clause, and addressed the landlord's right to liquidated damages in lieu of percentage rent.
• Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs v. Holmes Cnty.
  668 So. 2d 1096· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-03-05 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  Holmes County and Washington County sought to enjoin the Florida Department of Community Affairs from distributing federal disaster relief funds to Leon County, Wakulla County, and Tallahassee without allowing the plaintiff counties to compete for the funds. The appellate court r
• Sanz v. R.T. Aerospace Corp.
  650 So. 2d 1057· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-02-15 ·cited 18×
  Jose Sanz appeals the grant of a preliminary injunction enforcing a noncompete clause from his three-year employment agreement with R.T. Aerospace, which had expired by its terms in January 1992 before his termination in November 1993. The court reverses, holding that noncompete
• de Leon v. Aerochago, S.A.
  593 So. 2d 558· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-28 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction because the appellees failed to demonstrate a clear legal right and the likelihood of irreparable harm, as they had an adequate remedy at law.
• Int'l Res., Inc. v. NEW York Life Ins. Co.
  950 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the fourth state law claim regarding conversion rights under Kentucky law is pre-empted by ERISA, and plaintiffs must pursue their claims under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions.
• Gilpin v. Am. Fed'n OF State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO
  875 F.2d 1310· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate harm from the union's inadequate notices regarding agency fees, and thus were not entitled to restitution or punitive damages. Class certification was also denied due to a conflict of interest.
• State OF Cal. v. Am. Stores Co.
  872 F.2d 837· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-31 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that constituted impermissible indirect divestiture under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, but affirmed the district court's finding of a likelihood of success on the merits and irrepar
• United States v. BNS Inc.
  858 F.2d 456· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 18×
• McNEILAB, Inc. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  848 F.2d 34· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting survey evidence and presuming irreparable harm in a false comparative advertising case under the Lanham Act.
• Hartford House, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards
  846 F.2d 1268· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the combination of features comprising the plaintiff's greeting card trade dress was non-functional and protectable under the Lanham Act, and affirmed the preliminary injunction.
• M.G.K. P'rs v. Cavallo
  515 So. 2d 368· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-11-12 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  M.G.K. Partners appeals the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction preventing it from leasing space in its shopping center to Domino's Pizza, based on a non-competition clause in the existing Stage Deli lease. The court affirmed, finding no clear abuse of discreti
• Baja Contractors, Inc. v. The City OF Chicago
  830 F.2d 667· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because Baja did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, specifically lacking a protected property interest in MBE certification as a concrete supplier.
• Black LAW Enf't Officers Ass'n v. The City OF Akron
  824 F.2d 475· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction allowing temporary promotions based on a revised ranking, but erred in using the statute of limitations to bar evidence of past discriminatory actions.
• Dole Fresh Fruit Co. v. United Banana Co., Inc.
  821 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1987-06-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the corporate defendant's contempt order is affirmed, the contempt orders against individual officers and employees must be vacated due to due process violations, including lack of notice and opportunity to prepare a defense, and failure to advise them o
• Ecri v. McGRAW-Hill, Inc.
  809 F.2d 223· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 18×
  A preliminary injunction enforcing a contract cannot stand if the party seeking it fails to demonstrate irreparable harm, especially when the contract contains termination provisions that limit the scope of potential injury.
• In re Commonwealth OIL Ref. Co., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  805 F.2d 1175· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the EPA's administrative action to bring CORCO into compliance with environmental laws is exempt from the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, as it falls under the exception for governmental units enforcing police or regulatory powers.
• Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc.
  806 F.2d 234· Fed. Cir.· 1986-11-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court improperly modified a preliminary injunction after an appeal was filed, and that the original injunction's provisions regarding patent infringement and unfair competition could not stand due to the design's functionality.
• The Parents' Ass'n OF P.S. 16 v. Quinones
  803 F.2d 1235· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as the City's plan to accommodate Hasidic students likely violated the Establishment Clause's 'primary effect' test.
• Terry Props., Inc. v. Standard OIL Co. (IND)
  799 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings on liability for race discrimination and interference claims, but reversed the award of attorney's fees for some appellees.
• A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. v. Int'l Union
  799 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-03 ·cited 18×
  The majority improperly decided the ultimate issue of whether Massey is bound by the arbitration agreement, usurping the district court's role.
• Patchogue Nursing Ctr. v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  797 F.2d 1137· 2d Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a skilled nursing facility failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions for litigation to justify a preliminary injunction against the imposition of intermediate sanctions for noncompliance with Medicare participation requir
• The Squaxin Island Tribe v. The State OF Wash.
  781 F.2d 715· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-24 ·cited 18×
  The state may lawfully regulate and tax tribal liquor sales to non-Indians, but the tribes' sovereign immunity bars the state's counterclaim for taxes due, though not the collection of security posted for a preliminary injunction.
• Crespo-Gomez v. Richard
  780 F.2d 932· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding the alien ineligible for asylum due to a conviction for a particularly serious crime, and that the district court erred in granting and refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction.
• Cal. Cooler, Inc. v. Loretto Winery, Ltd.
  774 F.2d 1451· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  Registration on the supplemental register does not estop a plaintiff from proving secondary meaning in subsequent litigation, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Kaplan v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City Sch. Dist. OF the City OF NEW York
  759 F.2d 256· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court properly denied appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction because they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Heartfield v. Heartfield
  749 F.2d 1138· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-07 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  The dissenting judge would have affirmed the district court's injunction against pursuing custody claims in Louisiana state court.