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

• Channel Home Ctrs. v. Grossman
  795 F.2d 291· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 14×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  A property owner's promise to negotiate in good faith with a prospective tenant, pursuant to a letter of intent, can be an enforceable contract if supported by consideration and sufficiently definite terms.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Evans Prods. Co.
  775 F.2d 1084· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that preliminary injunctive relief under § 13(b) of the FTC Act is not available for past violations that are not likely to recur, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying ancillary equitable relief.
• Commc'ns Maint., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
  761 F.2d 1202· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that CMI's claims under the Indiana Franchise Act failed because no franchise fee was paid, its jury demand was untimely, and the termination clause was not unconscionable or subject to implied terms.
• Foltz v. U.S. News & World Report
  760 F.2d 1300· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction against the Profit-Sharing Plan was improper and remanded for further consideration, as the Plan's distribution of assets could extinguish a potential ERISA claim, constituting irreparable injury.
• Power Test Petroleum Distribs., Inc. v. Calcu GAS, Inc.
  754 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 14×
  A gasoline franchisor's requirement that franchisees sell only the franchisor's branded gasoline does not constitute an antitrust violation because the trademark and the gasoline are inseparable in the consumer's mind, and thus cannot form an illegal tie-in arrangement.
• The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  747 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had raised serious questions regarding the legality of the defendants' antitrust violations and that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs.
• Hyatt Corp. v. Hyatt Legal Servs. & Joel Hyatt
  736 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 14×
• Commonwealth OF Va. v. Watt
  741 F.2d 37· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that actions challenging the Secretary's cessation orders, which were based on alleged inconsistencies with federal regulations, must be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not the district where the mining operation is located
• Union Carbide Corp. v. UGI Corp.
  731 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly asserted personal jurisdiction over Sutton and did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction.
• Hibernia Nat'l Bank in New Orleans v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  733 F.2d 1403· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the FDIC receiver may permit depositors to offset account balances against loan balances, and Hibernia, as a participant in some loans, does not have priority over the FDIC receiver regarding these offsets.
• Hotelerama Assocs., Ltd. v. Bystrom
  449 So. 2d 836· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-02-28 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  The trial court erred by ruling on the merits of the tax assessment dispute when considering a motion for a temporary injunction.
• Rockwell Int'l Sys., Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.
  719 F.2d 583· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was appropriate to prevent demands on letters of credit where there was a high probability of fraud in the transaction, and the availability of other forums for relief was uncertain.
• Mesa Petroleum Co. v. Cities Serv. Co.
  715 F.2d 1425· 10th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 14×
  The Oklahoma Take-Over Bid Act violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because its indirect burden on interstate commerce is excessive in relation to the local interests it serves, mirroring the unconstitutional Illinois statute in Edgar v. MITE Corp.
• Palm Beach-Martin Cnty. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Robert J. Panaro, M.D.
  431 So. 2d 1023· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-04-20 ·cited 14×
  The Court held that the District Court's order staying proceedings pending state court litigation was a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Dotolo v. Schouten
  426 So. 2d 1013· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-01-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that injunctive relief is the only adequate remedy to prevent the continuing misappropriation of a trade secret, and irreparable injury may be presumed in such cases.
• Sierra Club v. Hennessy
  695 F.2d 643· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a permanent injunction without properly balancing the equities and finding irreparable harm, reversing the injunction against FHWA reimbursement.
• The Instrumentalist Co. v. Marine Corps League & the United States Marine Youth Found., Inc.
  694 F.2d 145· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 14×
• Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Connolly
  686 F.2d 1029· 1st Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction based solely on preemption by the Williams Act, finding it not sufficiently probable that the state statute was preempted. The court remanded for consideration of the commerce clause issue.
• Williams v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. Appeal of James Williams
  681 F.2d 161· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction may be granted based on affidavits and written evidence without a hearing if no relevant factual issues remain unresolved. The court also held that an order compelling document production is not typically reviewable on an interlocutory
• William and Mary Lou Castorr v. Brundage
  674 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that federal courts should not intervene in child custody disputes, claims were barred by res judicata, and judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment protected state officials and agencies.
• Medtronic v. Catalyst Research Corp.
  664 F.2d 660· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-06 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting CRC from enjoining Medtronic's production of lithium-iodine batteries, finding the balance of equities favored Medtronic, despite a differing preliminary assessment of the likelihood of success on the merits.
• Seashore Club OF Atl. City, Inc. v. Manley Tessler
  405 So. 2d 767· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-11-04 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court reversed a temporary injunction prohibiting fund disbursement because the trial court failed to make findings of fact establishing the required elements for injunctive relief, instead merely assuming the complaint's allegations were true.
• The World Sec. Fund v. Schmidt
  406 So. 2d 511· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-11-03 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  The World Security Fund and its principals appealed the trial court's refusal to dissolve a temporary injunction issued in favor of the Schmidts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the injunction lacked basis in
• Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified
  525 F. Supp. 186· S.D. Fla.· 1981-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the State of Florida's actions in threatening arrests and prosecution constituted bad faith harassment, justifying federal injunctive relief despite the Younger v. Harris doctrine, and that the court possessed admiralty jurisdiction over the salvage dispute.
• Louis v. Meissner
  530 F. Supp. 924· S.D. Fla.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 14×
  The court granted a temporary restraining order, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without it, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored the injunction.
• Coal. FOR Basic Human Needs v. King
  654 F.2d 838· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of a TRO, and granted an injunction pending appeal requiring the state to resume AFDC payments, finding a likelihood of success on the statutory claim.
• S. J. Stile Assocs. Ltd. v. Snyder
  646 F.2d 522· C.C.P.A.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the brokers failed to demonstrate a sufficient showing of irreparable harm and the public interest favored implementing the Customs Service's corrective action.
• Reynolds v. Sheet Metal Workers
  702 F.2d 221· D.C. Cir.· 1981-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against the union's apprentice selection criteria, nor did it lack jurisdiction over the case.
• Tate v. Am. Tugs, Inc.
  634 F.2d 869· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-20 ·cited 14×
  An injured seaman cannot use a preliminary injunction to compel an employer to pay a higher daily rate for maintenance when payments are already being made and a speedy trial on the merits is available.
• Chartwell Commc'ns Grp. v. Westbrook
  637 F.2d 459· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that over-the-air subscription television (STV) is not 'broadcasting' for the use of the general public under Section 605 of the Communications Act, and therefore its unauthorized interception is prohibited, and an implied private right of action exists under the s
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Exxon Corp.
  636 F.2d 1336· D.C. Cir.· 1980-12-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a district court may prohibit an attorney-client relationship between a parent company's counsel and a wholly-owned subsidiary subject to a hold separate order, if necessary to prevent conflicts of interest arising from potential divestiture.
• United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. United States Postal Serv.
  615 F.2d 102· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Postal Service's proposed changes constituted a rate change, not merely a classification change, and were therefore subject to a longer waiting period before temporary implementation.
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union v. Rollison
  615 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-11 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in granting a partial preliminary injunction, denying summary judgment, and deferring action pending administrative proceedings.
• Ina P. Anderson v. United States
  612 F.2d 1112· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-28 ·cited 14×·via Mandatory Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting mandatory and prohibitory preliminary injunctions because the moving party failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits or that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in her favor, and any harm was
• McCACHREN v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  599 F.2d 655· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the McCachrens' admitted default meant they had no property interest sufficient to require a due process hearing before foreclosure, and thus the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• Munoz v. Cnty. OF Imperial
  604 F.2d 1174· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and res judicata did not bar the federal district court from issuing a preliminary injunction against a county's enforcement of a water export restriction, as the constitutional issue was not decided in state court and the injunction ta
• Wash. Steel Corp. v. TW Corp.
  602 F.2d 594· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 14×
  A commercial bank is not per se precluded from financing one client's takeover of another client, even if the bank has a lending relationship and received confidential information from the target company.
• Am. Motors Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  601 F.2d 1329· 6th Cir.· 1979-07-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court's pretrial management order constituted a preliminary injunction, making it appealable, and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the FTC before seeking equitable relief.
• Young v. Harris
  599 F.2d 870· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 14×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding violations of federal statutes and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Libby ROD & GUN Club v. Poteat
  594 F.2d 742· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that specific appropriations for the Libby Additional Units and Reregulating Dam project (LAURD) constituted sufficient congressional authorization and consent under 33 U.S.C. § 401 for the expenditures.
• Hialeah, Inc. v. B & G Horse Transp., Inc.
  368 So. 2d 930· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-03-09 ·cited 14×·via Temporary Injunction
  B & G Horse Transportation sought a temporary injunction to prevent competitors from operating an intertrack horse transportation service without obtaining a certificate from the Florida Public Service Commission. The court reversed the injunction, holding that Section 323.24 aut
• Gabrilowitz v. Newman
  582 F.2d 100· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that denying a student the right to consult with and be advised by counsel during a disciplinary hearing, when a related criminal case is pending, deprives the student of due process.
• Selchow & Righter Co. v. McGRAW-Hill Book Co.
  580 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiff showed a likelihood of irreparable injury and substantial questions going to the merits, with a balance of hardships tipping in its
• Magill v. Lynch
  560 F.2d 22· 1st Cir.· 1977-07-25 ·cited 14×
  A city may constitutionally restrict its employees' participation in nominally nonpartisan elections if political parties play a significant role in those campaigns.
• Taunton Gardens Co. v. Hills
  557 F.2d 877· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying proceedings pending resolution of a related appeal, nor in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Grutka v. Barbour
  549 F.2d 5· 7th Cir.· 1977-02-02 ·cited 14×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board's proceedings because the constitutional challenge raised factual issues requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Atl. Richfield Co. & the Anaconda Co.
  549 F.2d 289· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the FTC failed to show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its antitrust claims regarding the merger's anticompetitive effects.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Pac. Press Publ'g Ass'n & Gen. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists
  535 F.2d 1182· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(2) because the statutory authority for such relief terminates with the EEOC's administrative process, not the resolution of private suits.
• Hamilton v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n
  552 F.2d 681· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the privilege of participating in interscholastic athletics is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Barrett v. Smith
  530 F.2d 829· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a pre-termination hearing is not constitutionally required for public employees in all circumstances, and the appellant failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or suffering irreparable harm.