Preliminary Injunction

3,388 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,538 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• O'Brien v. Town OF Caledonia
  748 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1984-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm due to the chilling effect on his First Amendment rights.
• Gen. Leaseways, Inc. v. Nat'l Truck Leasing Ass'n
  744 F.2d 588· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Association's territorial restrictions constitute a horizontal market division that is illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction.
• Martin v. Int'l Olympic Comm.
  740 F.2d 670· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the California Civil Rights Act does not permit or require separate but equal accommodations, privileges, or services.
• Godinez v. Lane
  733 F.2d 1250· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court reversed the district court's order modifying the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary factors for its issuance.
• Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc.
  729 F.2d 589· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction ordering the defendant to deliver seed corn, finding no abuse of discretion in granting the injunction.
• Moteles v. Univ. OF Pa. & Local 506
  730 F.2d 913· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-15 ·cited 18×
  The appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and that the district court erred in excluding evidence related to the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense. The court also noted that while
• DeRITIS v. AHZ Corp.
  444 So. 2d 93· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-02-01 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that while a temporary injunction was proper, its language must be made more specific and relate to the actual activities involved to avoid vagueness and ensure compliance.
• Maram v. Universidad Interamericana de Puerto RICO, Inc.
  722 F.2d 953· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the National Labor Relations Board's application for a preliminary injunction, finding reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred and that an injunction was just and proper.
• Islandia Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Vermut
  438 So. 2d 89· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-09-07 ·cited 18×
  Florida appellate court reversed a preliminary injunction preventing a condominium association from repainting a unit's exterior, holding that the trial court failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or inadequate remedy at law required for such extraordinary relief.
• White House Vigil FOR the ERA Comm. v. Watt
  717 F.2d 568· D.C. Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 18×
  The court modified a preliminary injunction, upholding certain restrictions on signs used by White House demonstrators while reversing the injunction against parcel placement regulations, balancing First Amendment rights against presidential security.
• Starnes v. Schweiker
  715 F.2d 134· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus) to review the Secretary's procedural challenges to Medicare benefit level determinations. It affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54 v. Danziger
  709 F.2d 815· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the cross-appeals and vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction, remanding for further proceedings.
• Martin v. Orrin L. Helstad
  699 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 18×
  A potential law school student who procures acceptance through fraudulent misrepresentations does not possess a constitutionally protected property interest in attending the university.
• ZVI D. v. Ambach
  694 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1982-11-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the status quo provision of the Education of the Handicapped Act does not apply when a private school placement was not the 'then current educational placement' agreed to or ordered by a public agency.
• United States v. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co.
  689 F.2d 66· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal is moot because the OSHA inspection warrant was fully executed and no citations were issued, thus the case has no legal consequence.
• Medtronic, Inc. v. Gibbons
  684 F.2d 565· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, holding that the district court did not err in applying Minnesota law to the restrictive covenant and in finding a threat of irreparable harm.
• Esposito v. Horning
  416 So. 2d 896· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-07-14 ·cited 18×
  Esposito appealed from orders granting and maintaining a preliminary injunction requiring a boat to be held at a boatyard in a dispute with Horning over ownership and a claimed repair contract. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the preliminary injunction
• In re S. L. E., Inc. v. S. L. E., Inc.
  674 F.2d 359· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal was moot and therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because all underlying disputes had been settled and the parties had released each other.
• Middleton-Keirn v. Stone
  655 F.2d 609· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 18×
  State employees seeking a preliminary injunction in a Title VII action after exhausting administrative remedies are presumed to suffer irreparable injury, and the district court erred by requiring them to prove it.
• Menominee Rubber Co. v. Gould, Inc.
  657 F.2d 164· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-21 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding no clear abuse of discretion by the district court in preserving the status quo pending trial.
• Stevens Linen Assocs., Inc. v. Mastercraft Corp.
  656 F.2d 11· 2d Cir.· 1981-07-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying compensatory damages for copyright infringement, as some degree of speculation is inherent in calculating lost sales, and remanded for computation of damages.
• Fed. Leasing, Inc. v. Underwriters AT Lloyd's
  650 F.2d 495· 4th Cir.· 1981-06-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the underwriters to process insurance claims according to a prior agreement, balancing the severe financial harm to the insured against the minimal harm to the under
• United States v. Marin
  651 F.2d 24· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 18×·via Injunction Pendente Lite
  The court held that the leases and sublease were void due to lack of corporate authorization and misrepresentations, and that the defendants were liable for damages as trespassers. Ancillary jurisdiction was proper.
• Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., Inc. v. Costle
  632 F.2d 1014· 2d Cir.· 1980-09-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the appellees failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly concerning the complex Fifth Amendment taking claims and the availability of a Tucker Act remedy.
• Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  633 F.2d 302· 3d Cir.· 1980-08-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that injunctive relief against the International Union was improper without findings of necessity or helpfulness, and the injunction against the Local Union was overbroad and insufficiently specific. The contempt order against the Local was also improper due to lac
• Bryan v. Koch
  627 F.2d 612· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a recipient of federal funds must demonstrate a rational decision-making process when a decision has a disproportionate racial impact under Title VI.
• Concerned Jewish Youth v. McGUIRE
  621 F.2d 471· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the police's broad, unspecific restrictions on First Amendment activity, based on an outdated order and without individualized assessment, constituted an unlawful prior restraint and violated constitutional rights.
• Gte Sylvania v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n
  598 F.2d 790· 3d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Consumer Product Safety Act's disclosure requirements apply to information released under the Freedom of Information Act, and that the district court correctly enjoined disclosure.
• Quadomain Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Pomerantz
  341 So. 2d 1041· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-01-21 ·cited 18×·via Temporary Injunction
  A condominium association appealed an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction without bond to prevent termination of a management agreement that had guaranteed limited increases in owners' common expenses. The appellate court reversed, finding the injunction improvide
• Chicago Stadium Corp. v. Scallen
  530 F.2d 204· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Tefal v. Prods. Int'l Co.
  529 F.2d 495· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding venue in New Jersey and in granting a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of trademark infringement and irreparable injury.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. British Oxygen Co., Ltd.
  529 F.2d 196· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were inadequate to support the preliminary injunction against Aireo, requiring vacation and remand.
• Citizens FOR A Better Env't v. City OF Park Ridge
  567 F.2d 689· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against an ordinance prohibiting door-to-door charitable solicitation, as it likely violated the First Amendment.
• Am. Med. Ass'n v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  522 F.2d 921· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-22 ·cited 18×
• Fred Lowenschuss for Fred Lowenschuss Assocs. Pension Plan v. Kane
  520 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the breach of contract and Williams Act claims, precluding summary judgment for the defendants. The court also found that the complaint sufficiently stated causes of action for breach of contract and under
• Michael and Cynthia Pride v. The Cmty. Sch. Bd. OF Brooklyn
  482 F.2d 257· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-18 ·cited 18×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their equal protection claims or irreparable harm.
• Page Commc'ns Eng'rs, Inc. v. Fkoehlke
  475 F.2d 994· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that Rule 65(c) does not mandate automatic assessment of damages on an injunction bond, and the district court has discretion to refuse damages in the interest of equity and justice.
• Conservation Council OF N.C. v. Froehlke
  473 F.2d 664· 4th Cir.· 1973-02-08 ·cited 18×
  District courts have an obligation to substantively review agency decisions under NEPA to determine if they are arbitrary or give insufficient weight to environmental factors.
• T. M. T. Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Union de Tronquistas de Puerto RICO
  453 F.2d 1171· 1st Cir.· 1971-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district court cannot consolidate a preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without providing prior notice to the parties.
• Steib v. NEW Orleans Clerks AND Checkers
  436 F.2d 1101· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a three-cent per hour check-off for a local union, not approved by a secret ballot of members, constitutes an invalid increase in dues under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. However, a three-cent per hour check-off for affiliated district and
• Bd. OF Educ. OF Indep. Sch. Dist. 89 v. York
  429 F.2d 66· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the injunctive orders and contempt adjudications but reduced the fines imposed on the parents, finding the original penalties harsh and excessive.
• A Quaker Action Grp. v. Hickel
  429 F.2d 185· D.C. Cir.· 1970-02-10 ·cited 18×
  The District Court erred in granting summary judgment, as issues regarding the constitutionality and discriminatory administration of picketing regulations require a full trial on the merits.
• Piedmont Aviation, Inc. v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  416 F.2d 633· 4th Cir.· 1969-09-29 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the interlocutory injunction against the pilot strike, provided the status quo is maintained, and remanded for determination of whether the dispute is major or minor.
• Nelms v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Indus. of the United States & Canada
  405 F.2d 715· 5th Cir.· 1968-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to reinstate the plaintiff to union office and membership.
• Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Drew Pearson
  390 F.2d 489· D.C. Cir.· 1967-12-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the denial of a temporary injunction was proper because monetary damages were an adequate remedy at law and there was no basis for equitable relief.
• Uneeda Doll Co., Inc. v. Goldfarb Novelty Co., Inc.
  373 F.2d 851· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the copyright notice on the doll and its display package was sufficient, and that willful infringers cannot claim insufficiency of notice.
• Stevens v. Frick
  372 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-01 ·cited 18×
  The federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, precludes federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless an exception applies, and no exception was demonstrated here.
• Bolt Assocs., Inc. v. Alpine Geophysical Assocs., Inc.
  365 F.2d 742· 3d Cir.· 1966-09-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the meaning of 'design' and the similarity of the devices were not triable issues, the defense of independent development by a third party (Lamont) was a valid defense to breach of contract and required further factual determination.
• Birdie Mae Davis v. Bd. OF Sch. Comm'rs OF Mobile Cnty.
  322 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction for school desegregation, as the defendants offered no sufficient reason for further delay.
• Meredith v. Fair
  305 F.2d 343· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-25 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court's finding that the appellant would be a troublemaker should be given more weight, potentially leading to a different outcome.