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

• State OF Ohio v. Madeline Marie Nursing Homes # 1 & # 2
  694 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge erred in issuing turnover orders against the State of Ohio, as the state likely possessed sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and the orders constituted impermissible retroactive monetary awards from the state treasury.
• Flower CAB Co. & Checker Taxi Co., Inc. v. Petitte
  685 F.2d 192· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court declined to vacate its previously granted stay of a preliminary injunction, finding the appellees' cited cases inapposite.
• United States v. Prof'l AIR Traffic Controllers Org. (Patco)
  678 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the unconditional $5,000 fine imposed for civil contempt was punitive and impermissible in a civil proceeding, but the finding of civil contempt itself was valid.
• Grumman Corp. v. The LTV Corp.
  665 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court properly issued a preliminary injunction against LTV's tender offer for Grumman based on antitrust grounds under the Clayton Act.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  665 F.2d 1072· D.C. Cir.· 1981-09-01 ·cited 16×
  A court may only grant relief explicitly provided by Section 13(b) of the FTC Act when its requirements are met, and cannot issue a hold-separate order in such circumstances.
• Adolph Lyons v. City OF LOS Angeles
  656 F.2d 417· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the order granting a preliminary injunction and dismissed the cross-appeal.
• Sheehan v. Purolator Courier Corp. & Purolator, Inc.
  676 F.2d 877· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 16×
  A federal court has jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief against employer retaliation while a Title VII charge is pending before the EEOC, even before a right-to-sue letter has been issued.
• Mass. Coal. OF Citizens With Disabilities v. Civil Def. Agency & Off. OF Emergency Preparedness OF the Commonwealth OF Mass.
  649 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Marilyn O'Shea and the Honorable E. Randolph Bentley
  397 So. 2d 1196· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-05-06 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court reviewed whether a trial court could award attorney's fees to a defendant in an embezzlement case from a receivership estate administering assets of the embezzler and his household. The court held that the common fund doctrine did not support such an award because the d
• The City OF Atlanta v. The Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  636 F.2d 1084· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-13 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in rejecting the appellants' claims regarding due process, equal protection, breach of contract, impairment of contract, state constitutional violations, and non-compli
• Warehouse Groceries Mgmt., Inc. v. Sav-U-Warehouse Groceries, Inc.
  624 F.2d 655· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that consolidating a preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without adequate notice to the parties is improper, and that a federal court has jurisdiction over related state law claims when the federal claim is substantial.
• United States v. Siemens Corp. & G. D. Searle & Co.
  621 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding Siemens' potential entry into the nuclear medical equipment market.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Civiletti
  614 F.2d 92· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-21 ·cited 16×
  A party cannot appeal an injunction to which they consented.
• Levine v. C & W Mining Co.
  610 F.2d 432· 6th Cir.· 1979-12-11 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  A district court may issue a temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the LMRA, including an interim bargaining order, if there is reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices have occurred that threatened to erode union majority support and impede the election process.
• The F. & M. Schaefer Corp. & the F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.
  597 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the proposed acquisition of notes by a competitor likely violated antitrust laws and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the injunction.
• Pharmadyne Labs., Inc. v. Kennedy
  596 F.2d 568· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that district courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin the FDA from carrying out multiple seizure actions under 21 U.S.C.A. § 334, as the seizure action itself is the exclusive forum for resolving disputes.
• Modern Controls, Inc. v. Andreadakis
  578 F.2d 1264· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the covenant not to compete was likely enforceable, supported by independent consideration and the potential for irreparable harm.
• Garzaro v. The Univ. OF Puerto RICO
  575 F.2d 335· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the interlocutory injunction was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed it, deferring full review of the merits to an appeal from the final judgment.
• Jacksonville Mar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  571 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-17 ·cited 16×
  The employer must allege and prove willingness to arbitrate and resort to contractual arbitration machinery as a prerequisite to a Boys Markets injunction.
• United States v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. OF LOS Angeles & Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc.
  575 F.2d 222· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-28 ·cited 16×
  Federal district courts are not legally precluded from ordering rescission of acquisitions found to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and the preliminary injunction was within the district court's discretion.
• Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc. v. Earnie Shavers
  562 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-19 ·cited 16×
  The district court erred in enjoining Top Rank from seeking injunctive relief in state courts, as a consent judgment does not bind non-parties and preliminary injunctions are interlocutory.
• Herzog & Straus v. GRT Corp.
  553 F.2d 789· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a sua sponte grant of summary judgment was improper without adequate notice and opportunity for the non-moving party to present its case.
• Blaylock v. Cheker OIL Co.
  547 F.2d 962· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in including paragraph (d) of the preliminary injunction, which went beyond restoring the status quo and was based on an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of success under the Robinson-Patman Act. Consequently, the contempt order
• Arlington OIL Mills, Inc. v. Knebel
  543 F.2d 1092· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the July 6 announcement of peanut price support differentials was procedurally defective under the APA, but the district court erred in mandating implementation of the March 19 announcement, which should have been remanded to the Secretary.
• Rutherford v. United States & David Mathews
  542 F.2d 1137· 10th Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 16×
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Food Town Stores, Inc.
  539 F.2d 1339· 4th Cir.· 1976-08-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the denial of a temporary restraining order under § 13(b) of the FTC Act is an appealable order, and granted an injunction pending appeal because the FTC demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success in proving the merger would violate antitrust laws.
• Lektro-Vend Corp. v. The Vendo Co.
  545 F.2d 1050· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-28 ·cited 16×
  Section 16 of the Clayton Act is an "expressly authorized" exception to the anti-injunction statute, allowing federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings when necessary to protect federal antitrust claims.
• Catrone v. Mass. State Racing Comm'n
  535 F.2d 669· 1st Cir.· 1976-05-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding the federal constitutional claims until state courts could resolve the unresolved state law question regarding the plaintiff's right to access the track.
• Wilkinson v. Manpower, Inc.
  531 F.2d 712· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 16×
  A restrictive covenant in a franchise agreement, even if not a statutory exception in Florida, is enforceable if it is reasonable under the governing law chosen by the parties (Wisconsin) and not contrary to Florida's fundamental public policy.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Sloan
  535 F.2d 679· 2d Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the appeal, finding most of the orders non-appealable interlocutory decisions.
• Crockett v. Green
  534 F.2d 715· 7th Cir.· 1976-03-19 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction that included class action certification and ratio hiring provisions to address racial discrimination in skilled craft positions.
• Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Engman
  527 F.2d 1115· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-22 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that appellants were not entitled to a stay of civil penalties because they had already waived their right to judicial review of the consent orders and were contesting the interpretation, not the validity, of those orders.
• Caramico v. The Sec'y OF THE Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  509 F.2d 694· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's order, emphasizing the need for essential fairness in administrative actions concerning tenant rights.
• Mci Commc'ns Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & the Bell Tel. Co. of Pa.
  496 F.2d 214· 3d Cir.· 1974-04-15 ·cited 16×·via Mandatory Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a mandatory preliminary injunction without first deferring to the FCC under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, given the uncertainty of FCC orders and ongoing FCC proceedings.
• Jerome v. Viviano Food Co., Inc.
  489 F.2d 965· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-10 ·cited 16×
  A plaintiff cannot file suit in federal court under Title VII until administrative remedies have been exhausted and the EEOC has issued a right-to-sue letter.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. ex rel. J. Shane Creamer v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  469 F.2d 1387· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Commonwealth failed to make a strong showing of prevailing on the merits and suffering irreparable injury, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• N. Avondale Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth.
  464 F.2d 486· 6th Cir.· 1972-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to show probable success on the merits and the housing project was substantially complete.
• Horne Bros., Inc. v. Laird
  463 F.2d 1268· D.C. Cir.· 1972-05-17 ·cited 16×
  A contractor's suspension for over one month without an opportunity to be heard or rebut charges violates fundamental fairness, but rejection of a bid within one month of suspension is permissible.
• Reed v. The Bd. OF Election Comm'rs OF the City OF Cambridge
  459 F.2d 121· 1st Cir.· 1972-05-01 ·cited 16×
  The appeal from the denial of provisional registration is moot because the district court did not reach the merits of the controversy.
• Parade Publ'ns, Inc. v. Philadelphia Mailers Union NO. 14
  459 F.2d 369· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-01 ·cited 16×
  A district court cannot enjoin a strike without first determining that the strike is over a grievance which both parties are contractually bound to arbitrate.
• Croskey St. Concerned Citizens v. Romney
  459 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction against the construction of a low-rent housing project.
• Murray v. Kunzig
  462 F.2d 871· D.C. Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge maintains their original position, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation of precedent and its implications for judicial oversight of the civil service.
• Sutton Cosmetics (P. R.) Inc. v. Lander Co., Inc.
  455 F.2d 285· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the first bona fide user of an abandoned trademark does not automatically acquire secondary meaning rights associated with the mark.
• Winkleman v. NEW York Stock Exch.
  445 F.2d 786· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without affording the appellants an opportunity to be heard, but did not err in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of success on the merits.
• Am. OIL Co. v. McMULLIN
  433 F.2d 1091· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-13 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a defect in removal jurisdiction can be waived by the parties' conduct and that the injunction against pursuing unrelated liens was improperly granted.
• First-Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Camp
  432 F.2d 481· 4th Cir.· 1970-10-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction without making the required findings of fact under Rule 52(a).
• Yahr v. Resor
  431 F.2d 690· 4th Cir.· 1970-08-27 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the appellants failed to show a probability of success on the merits or a clear denial of constitutional rights.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Pearson
  426 F.2d 1339· 10th Cir.· 1970-05-22 ·cited 16×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that while the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper based on findings that the defendant had ceased violating securities laws and had no intention to re-enter the business, the dismissal of the entire action was premature and improper.
• Cnty. OF Santa Barbara v. Hickel
  426 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a right to an agency hearing before additional oil drilling, and thus the denial of a preliminary injunction on non-constitutional grounds was not an abuse of discretion.
• Henderson v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs
  420 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1969-12-11 ·cited 16×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a union's picketing activity to force an employer to reassign work, even temporarily, constitutes an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the NLRA, and the "unclean hands" defense is not applicable against the NLRB seeking injunctive relief.