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

• J. M. Fields OF Anderson, Inc. v. The Kroger Co.
  330 F.2d 686· 5th Cir.· 1964-04-15 ·cited 15×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in including specific language in the permanent injunction, as it clarified the scope of the prohibited activity.
• Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Eng'g & Foundry Co.
  190 F.2d 217· 3d Cir.· 1951-06-08 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the counterclaim as not ancillary, and remanded the case for reconsideration of all issues.
• Henderson v. Burd
  133 F.2d 515· 2d Cir.· 1943-02-09 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was properly granted regarding sales of nylon hose, but the injunction's scope regarding other hosiery was too broad and needed modification.
• Smetal Corp. v. Fam. Loan Co.
  119 Fla. 497· Fla.· 1935-03-26 ·cited 15×·via Temporary Injunction
  Smetal Corporation sued Family Loan Company to void loans allegedly made in violation of Florida's Small Loan Act (Chapter 10177, Laws of 1925), which regulated interest rates and loan amounts for licensed lenders. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss but part
• NetChoice, LLC v. Attorney Gen., State of Fla.
  34 F.4th 1196· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-23 ·cited 14×
  Social-media platforms Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok are private companies whose content-moderation decisions constitute protected editorial judgment under the First Amendment, and therefore Florida's S.B. 7072, which prohibits them from deplatforming political candidate
• Lucius v. Judd
  783 F. Supp. 2d 1183· M.D. Fla.· 2019-08-16 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because he failed to comply with procedural rules.
• Am. Learning Sys., Inc. v. Breno Gomes and Adriana Gomes
  199 So. 3d 1076· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-08-31 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  A private school appeals the circuit court's grant of a temporary injunction requiring release of high school transcripts to parents who withdrew their children and allegedly breached their enrollment contract by failing to pay tuition. The appellate court reverses, holding that
• Romano v. Olshen
  153 So. 3d 912· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-03-12 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  This consolidated appeal involves a dispute over whether a professional guardian could access a joint brokerage account (the Oppenheimer Account) titled in the incapacitated ward's and his estranged spouse's names to pay guardianship administration fees and the ward's necessary e
• Odebrecht Constr., Inc. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Transp.
  715 F.3d 1268· 11th Cir.· 2013-05-06 ·cited 14×
  Odebrecht Construction, a Florida corporation with no direct business operations in Cuba, challenged Florida's Cuba Amendment, which prohibits companies doing business in Cuba—or affiliated with companies doing business in Cuba—from bidding on state and local public contracts wor
• Hilb Rogal & Hobbs OF Fla., Inc. v. Grimmel
  48 So. 3d 957· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-12-01 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  HRH, an insurance broker, appeals the trial court's dissolution of a temporary injunction against former employee Grimmel, who violated a non-piracy clause by soliciting HRH's customers after starting a competing firm. The court reversed, holding that HRH established a legitimate
• Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States
  571 F. Supp. 2d 1280· S.D. Fla.· 2008-08-08 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, as the DOT's determination that the Tamiami Trail Modification Project was an environmental restoration project, not a transportat
• Dany Katz Gilbert and Lawrence Gilbert v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  981 So. 2d 609· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-05-14 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Gilberts appealed multiple orders regarding their dispute with Florida Power & Light Company over a noisy transformer on FPL's easement. The court affirmed orders requiring the Gilberts to pay for the transformer's removal under FPL's tariff, reversed the denial of their moti
• E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Bassett
  947 So. 2d 1195· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-01-24 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the employer failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, thus affirming the denial of a temporary injunction.
• Autonation, Inc. v. O'Brien
  347 F. Supp. 2d 1299· S.D. Fla.· 2004-12-02 ·cited 14×
  The court granted AutoNation's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding the non-compete agreement.
• Dragomirecky v. Town OF Ponce Inlet
  882 So. 2d 495· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-09-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an injunction and stay to prevent the demolition of a house constructed in violation of building codes.
• State v. Pringle
  707 So. 2d 387· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-02-26 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Marine Fisheries Commission appealed a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of net restrictions against commercial fishermen, triggering an automatic stay under appellate rules. The appellate court reinstated the au
• Dennis K. King, M.D., P.A. v. John G. Jessup, M.D.
  698 So. 2d 339· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-15 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  Dr. King sought a temporary injunction to enforce a covenant not to compete against his former employee Dr. Jessup, who opened a competing medical practice nearby. The trial court denied the injunction, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Dr. King failed to demonstrate
• McCAHILL v. Braishfield Assocs., Inc.
  661 So. 2d 399· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-10-13 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.
• Brent C. Miller, Charles M. Rand, & Miller & Rand, P.A. v. Jacobs & Goodman, P.A.
  639 So. 2d 1088· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-07-15 ·cited 14×
  Miller and Rand appeal a trial court's denial of their third motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction governing fee allocation from clients who followed them when they left their law firm. The appellate court affirms, finding that appellants had earlier opportunities to raise
• Rajiv Chandra, M.D. v. Gopal Gadodia, M.D.
  610 So. 2d 15· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-11-20 ·cited 14×
  Chandra sought enforcement of noncompetition agreements against two former employees who resigned after only five to six months of employment. The trial court denied the preliminary injunction based on a 1990 statutory amendment requiring proof of irreparable injury and reasonabl
• S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc.
  968 F.2d 371· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 14×
  A franchisor's right to terminate a franchise agreement for non-payment of royalties is independent of any claims the franchisee may have against the franchisor for breach of contract, and post-termination unauthorized use of the trademark constitutes infringement.
• Ill. Council ON Long Term Care v. Bradley
  957 F.2d 305· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that delayed Medicaid payments do not violate the Boren Amendment or its implementing regulations because these provisions address payment rates and not the timeliness of payments.
• Associated Builders & Contractors OF Massachusetts/R.I., Inc. v. The Mass. Water Res. Auth.
  935 F.2d 345· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Act preempts a state-mandated labor agreement requirement for public construction projects, as it interferes with the collective bargaining process and the free play of economic forces intended by the Act.
• Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. OF Educ.
  910 F.2d 1172· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying a preliminary injunction, and vacated the order for remand.
• Equifax Servs., Inc. v. Hitz
  905 F.2d 1355· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendant and did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, setting the bond amount, or denying a motion to transfer venue.
• Somerset House, Inc. v. Turnock
  900 F.2d 1012· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the pre-deprivation procedures provided by the Nursing Home Care Reform Act, including notice and an opportunity to respond, were sufficient to satisfy due process requirements for issuing a conditional license and placing a facility on a list of violators. Te
• Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Mattox
  897 F.2d 773· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  State laws proscribing deceptive advertising are preempted by federal law when applied to the advertising of fares by interstate and international airlines.
• Hall v. City OF Orlando
  555 So. 2d 963· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-01-25 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  Hall appeals the denial of a temporary injunction to prevent the City of Orlando from expanding drainage through an easement on his property. The court reversed, finding that Hall satisfied all requirements for a temporary injunction because the City's drainage expansion would ca
• Bill's Coal Co., Inc. v. Bd. OF Pub. Utils. OF Springfield
  887 F.2d 242· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that sellers were not entitled to lost profits damages under UCC § 2-708(2) and that certain expenses were not recoverable as incidental damages. The court also affirmed the denial of attorney's fees and the rejection of the purchaser's bad faith and nonconforming
• Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters v. Sw. Airlines Co.
  875 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 14×
  The court should not allow parties to keep a dispute alive solely to obtain a judicial interpretation of a contract, especially when the original contract has expired and a new one exists.
• Medlin v. Palmer
  874 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the Dallas city ordinance prohibiting amplified sound near certain facilities is a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction that does not violate First Amendment rights, vagueness, or free exercise of religion.
• In re Funkhouser
  873 F.2d 1076· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Magistrate's undue delay in processing an in forma pauperis prisoner civil rights action and his procedural handling of partial filing fees were improper.
• Banco Indus. de Venezuela v. Suarez
  541 So. 2d 1324· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-04-18 ·cited 14×
  This case involves an appeal by Banco Industrial de Venezuela (BIV) against an order dissolving a temporary injunction. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the Florida RICO Act provides for preliminary injunctions with less stringent requirements
• Miss. Women's Med. Clinic v. McMILLAN
  866 F.2d 788· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Elders Grain, Inc.
  868 F.2d 901· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-30 ·cited 14×
• Elree COX, Jr. v. City OF Chicago & Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local 2, Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO
  868 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their Title VII disparate impact claim.
• Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  863 F.2d 891· D.C. Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judges argue that the panel's decision improperly disregarded the district court's factual findings, misapplied labor law by transplanting the Wright Line test from the NLRA to the RLA context for large-scale corporate restructurings, and created a conflict with ot
• Richard Horn and all others similarly situated v. City OF Chicago & Datacom Sys. Corp.
  860 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the demand notices provided constitutionally sufficient notice of the opportunity to contest parking violations, reversing the district court's finding of a due process violation.
• The State OF Alaska v. Native Vill. OF Venetie
  856 F.2d 1384· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the balance of hardships and public interest favored the appellees, and serious questions were raised regarding the appellants' tribal status and jurisdiction to tax.
• United States v. Unit NO. 7 & Unit NO. 8 OF Shop IN THE Grove Condo.
  853 F.2d 1445· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The government violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by refusing to return a criminal defendant's allegedly forfeitable property when it was established as his only source of funds to pay his defense lawyer.
• Dino Loretangeli v. Critelli
  853 F.2d 186· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the 'reasonable likelihood of success' standard for 'good cause' under LMRDA § 501(b) and in resolving complex interpretive disputes at that preliminary stage.
• David K. v. Lane
  839 F.2d 1265· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court's opinion strongly urges prison officials to crack down on gangs, acknowledging the difficulty in doing so under current legal constraints.
• Nat'l Org. FOR THE Reform OF Marijuana Laws v. Mullen
  828 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the order appointing a special master is not appealable as a modification of an injunction, but can be reviewed via writ of mandamus. The court also held that the federal entities participating in CAMP can be required to pay the master's fees.
• Ray v. Sch. Dist. of DeSoto Cnty.
  666 F. Supp. 1524· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the exclusion of HIV-positive hemophiliac children from regular classrooms.
• Lindsay v. The City OF SAN Antonio
  821 F.2d 1103· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the ordinance prohibiting portable signs likely serves the city's aesthetic interests and is not substantially broader than necessary.
• Sullivan v. The City OF Pittsburgh
  811 F.2d 171· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the federal plaintiffs had standing, the district court did not err in refusing to abstain, the statute of limitations did not bar the claims, and the district court did not violate the Full Faith and Credit Act.
• Furlong v. Gudknecht
  808 F.2d 233· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge argues that an elected official may consider party affiliation when appointing a principal deputy, especially when that deputy may succeed to the elected office.
• Humana, Inc. v. Avram A. Jacobson, M.D., P.A.
  804 F.2d 1390· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that service of process was validly perfected under state rules after an attempted mail service failed, and the record supported the district court's finding of irreparable injury justifying a preliminary injunction.
• Ill. Corporate Travel, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  806 F.2d 722· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court concurred in the judgment, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, despite potential issues with the preliminary injunction standard applied.
• Monaghan v. Deakins
  798 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Younger abstention did not require dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for damages and return of property, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.