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

• Rodger Bookall v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
  995 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-12-03 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that an ex parte temporary injunction is invalid if it fails to state the reasons why notice was not required.
• Animal Rights Found. OF Fla., Inc. v. Siegel
  867 So. 2d 451· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-02-06 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Animal Rights Foundation of Florida appealed a temporary injunction prohibiting it from making specific statements and picketing regarding alleged animal abuse at a timeshare resort. The court reversed, holding that the injunction improperly restricted the Foundation's First
• Coscia v. OLD Fla. Plantation, Ltd.
  828 So. 2d 488· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-10-18 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in imposing restrictions on the appellants' use of the easement without sufficient findings or evidence to support the need for such restrictions.
• Charlotte Cnty. v. Imc-Phosphates Co.
  824 So. 2d 298· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-08-22 ·cited 16×
  Charlotte County challenged the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary's refusal to recuse himself from deciding the county's exceptions to an administrative law judge's recommended order approving a phosphate mining permit. The court held that the Secretary's p
• Kaisha v. Swiss Watch Int'l, Inc.
  188 F. Supp. 2d 1350· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-04 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Orkin Extermination Co., Inc. v. Tfank
  766 So. 2d 318· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-03-01 ·cited 16×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  Orkin Extermination Company appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction against a former employee, William Tfank, who allegedly violated a noncompetition agreement. The court affirmed the denial, holding that a verified complaint alone is insuffic
• The State Chem. Mfg. Co. v. Lopez
  642 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-09-21 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a presumption of irreparable injury applies to customer solicitation, but not to employment by a competitor, and that the non-compete agreement's duration was reasonable.
• Autoskill Inc. v. Nat'l Educ. Support Sys., Inc.
  994 F.2d 1476· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed within the extended period provided by 11 U.S.C. § 108(b)(2) and that the appeal was not voided by the automatic bankruptcy stay due to Bankruptcy Rule 6009. The court also affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding Auto
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNEIL-P.P.C., Inc.
  973 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the term 'PM' is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning, and that the trade dress for 'Tylenol PM' is not likely to cause consumer confusion with 'Excedrin PM'.
• McNEIL-P.C.C., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
  938 F.2d 1544· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a plaintiff can prove a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act by demonstrating that the defendant's own studies are unreliable, without conducting its own independent studies.
• Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert
  934 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the tribe's motion for a preliminary injunction, as the tribe failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Congregation Lubavitch and Rabbi Sholom B. Kalmanson v. City OF Cincinnati
  923 F.2d 458· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 16×
• Cicena Ltd. v. Columbia Telecomms. Grp.
  900 F.2d 1546· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in basing a preliminary injunction on a finding of 'secondary meaning in the making,' as this doctrine is not recognized under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and the evidence was insufficient to establish actual secondary meaning.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. P*I*E Nationwide, Inc.
  894 F.2d 887· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-30 ·cited 16×
  A court of appeals may exercise equitable discretion when asked to enforce a National Labor Relations Board order, but equitable defenses like laches require unreasonable delay and resulting harm, which were not present here.
• Schering Corp. & Key Pharms., Inc. v. Vitarine Pharms., Inc.
  889 F.2d 490· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions after a voluntary dismissal, but reversed the imposition of sanctions because the plaintiffs' assertions of health risks were adequately grounded in fact at the time of filing.
• Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ'g Grp., Inc.
  886 F.2d 490· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the risk of consumer confusion from the parody cover was slight and outweighed by the public interest in free expression.
• Warner Bros. Inc. v. DAE RIM Trading, Inc.
  877 F.2d 1120· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the award of $100 in statutory damages and denial of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, reversed the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, and dismissed the attorney's appeal with sanctions.
• Modern Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc.
  871 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a choice of law provision in a franchise agreement may be unenforceable if it violates a fundamental public policy of the state with a materially greater interest in the transaction, even if the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties.
• Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ross Bicycles, Inc.
  870 F.2d 1176· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by presuming consumer confusion from intentional copying and by deemphasizing labeling as a matter of law due to secondary meaning.
• R.C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Unilever N.V.
  867 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a competitor plaintiff can have standing to challenge a merger under the Clayton Act if they demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding a threat of antitrust injury, even if the alleged injury is speculative.
• White v. Carlucci
  862 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 16×
  A Title VII plaintiff must independently establish a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction, even in cases involving federal employees, and mere reassignment does not constitute irreparable harm.
• Hasbro, Inc. v. Lanard Toys, Ltd.
  858 F.2d 70· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the mark "GUNG-HO" is suggestive and that there is a likelihood of confusion between Hasbro's and Lanard's products, reversing the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Cnty. OF Allegheny
  842 F.2d 655· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-15 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed a judgment denying attorney's fees to an excess carrier for pursuing an action against a primary insurer, disagreeing with a prior decision that allowed such fees.
• Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro
  834 F.2d 326· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while prisoners have a Fourteenth Amendment right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain an abortion, the Eighth Amendment does not mandate state provision of elective, medically unnecessary abortions.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. The Am. Bd. OF Trade, Inc.
  830 F.2d 431· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-28 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the appointment of a receiver and the freezing of personal assets, but questioned the sua sponte imposition of civil contempt sanctions.
• Emory Searcey v. Crim
  815 F.2d 1389· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in resolving the constitutional question of whether public schools created a public forum at the summary judgment stage, as factual development was necessary. However, the court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment and prelim
• Cypress Barn, Inc. v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  812 F.2d 1363· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a nonparty cannot be held in civil contempt for violating an order of which it had no notice, even if it had notice of a prior, superseded order.
• Gelco Corp. v. Coniston P'rs
  811 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Coniston failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. Constitutional issues regarding the Minnesota Control Share Acquisition Act were deemed moot.
• Paisey v. Honorable Linda L. Vitale
  807 F.2d 889· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that merely filing a state court action, even if retaliatory, does not constitute "under color of state law" for a Section 1983 claim, and thus the plaintiff failed to state a claim for injunctive relief.
• Schultz v. Frisby
  807 F.2d 1339· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the town's ordinance prohibiting residential picketing is a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that balances the right to privacy against free speech rights.
• Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Emulex Corp.
  805 F.2d 380· Fed. Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction must be vacated if the district court fails to hold a hearing, make findings of fact, and provide a statement of reasons as required by Rules 52 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Manbourne, Inc. v. Conrad
  796 F.2d 884· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining the issuance of stock to option-holders, as it was part of a scheme to deprive the majority shareholder of control.
• Educ. Testing Servs. v. Katzman
  793 F.2d 533· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's preliminary injunction was supported by a likelihood of success on the merits for copyright infringement, despite procedural deficiencies in the findings of fact.
• Conservation LAW Found. OF NEW England, Inc. v. Secretary OF the Interior
  790 F.2d 965· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction, even if mooted by happenstance, can constitute sufficient success to warrant attorney's fees under the ESA and OCSLA citizens' suit provisions, but fees for claims not substantially related to the successful claims should be excluded.
• Calash v. City OF Bridgeport
  788 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Kennedy Stadium is a nonpublic forum, and the City's policy restricting its use to civic, charitable, and non-profit organizations is a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restriction, thus the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs & Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. Hooshang Kadi VAR, M.D.
  482 So. 2d 501· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-01-22 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Board of Medical Examiners appeals a circuit court order denying its motion to dismiss and finding it in contempt for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order that prohibited consideration of a doctor's nolo contendere plea in administrative license revocation procee
• Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.
  780 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the omission of copyright notice from toys manufactured and sold by Takara was curable under 17 U.S.C. § 405(a)(2), even if deliberate, and that Hasbro's subsequent registration and efforts to add notice constituted a valid cure, thus affirming the preliminary
• Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv.
  766 F.2d 715· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction, it abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction because the appellees failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the injunction was necessary to aid the arbitration process.
• Chrysler Corp. v. Tex. Motor Vehicle Comm'n
  755 F.2d 1192· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-28 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that Texas's lemon law does not violate manufacturers' due process or equal protection rights, nor is it preempted by federal law.
• Gjertsen v. The Bd. OF Election Comm'rs OF the City OF Chicago
  751 F.2d 199· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 16×
  The appeal from the preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the relief granted has already been implemented and the underlying case remains active in the district court.
• Mitchell v. Cuomo
  748 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Eighth Amendment violations.
• The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Chesebrough-Pond's Inc.
  747 F.2d 114· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-30 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, finding that neither party demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.
• Thomas v. English
  448 So. 2d 623· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-04-18 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court reversed a temporary injunction granted without bond, holding that while abatement was proper where duplicate actions involved the same parties and causes of action, the trial court erred by failing to require a bond absent a finding of the opposing party's financial in
• Roberts v. VAN Buren Pub. Schs.
  731 F.2d 523· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the teachers were unlikely to suffer irreparable harm because reinstatement and backpay would be adequate remedies if they prevailed on the merits.
• Mo. Pac. Joint Protective Bd., Bhd. Ry. Carmen of the United States & Canada, Afl-Cio v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  730 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by not determining whether the dispute was major or minor under the Railway Labor Act before ruling on the preliminary injunction.
• Navel Orange Admin. Comm. v. Exeter Orange Co., Inc.
  722 F.2d 449· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 16×
  Enforcement proceedings under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act cannot be used as a collateral attack on a marketing order's conformity with the Act; challenges must first be resolved through the administrative process.
• Winterland Concessions Co. v. Smith
  706 F.2d 793· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit with prejudice because the plaintiffs' timely notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) terminated the action before the court could act.
• LaCarttle Jones v. Franzen
  697 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing an injunction because the prisoner failed to demonstrate that the prison's copying policy impeded his constitutional right of access to the courts.
• Int'l Union v. LaSALLE Mach. Tool, Inc.
  696 F.2d 452· 6th Cir.· 1982-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction without complying with the procedural requirements of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, specifically failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on disputed facts and make required findings.
• Perimeter Invs., Inc. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co. OF Cent. Fla., Inc.
  423 So. 2d 586· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-12-20 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  Defendants in mortgage foreclosure actions sought injunctions to prevent the plaintiff from continuing litigation, claiming a settlement agreement had been reached. The court held that the Statute of Frauds applies to oral settlement agreements involving the transfer of property,