Preliminary Injunction

3,388 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,537 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Bush
  242 F.2d 156· 5th Cir.· 1957-03-01 ·cited 80×
  The court held that Louisiana's constitutional provisions and statutes mandating racial segregation in public schools, including the Pupil Assignment Law, are unconstitutional and void as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
• ALL Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc.
  887 F.2d 1535· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-13 ·cited 78×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a district court must make specific factual findings regarding market power and control over essential competitive elements before applying the per se rule to cooperative buying arrangements and price-fixing claims.
• Camenisch v. The Univ. OF Tex.
  616 F.2d 127· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 78×
  The court held that a private right of action exists under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for injunctive relief, and that plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
• Alton & S. Ry. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers
  463 F.2d 872· D.C. Cir.· 1972-04-11 ·cited 78×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the underlying dispute has been resolved by subsequent legislation and the injunction has expired by its terms, and there is no reasonable expectation of the same legal controversy recurring.
• Southern v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co.
  373 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-16 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment without proper notice and hearing, and that the new evidence presented in the Rule 60(b) motion warranted reconsideration.
• Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City OF Deerfield Beach
  661 F.2d 328· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-13 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, as the city's zoning decision interfered with a fundamental right and was not justified by legitimate state interests.
• Hines v. D'Artois
  531 F.2d 726· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 77×
  A district court order staying a § 1981 employment discrimination suit pending exhaustion of Title VII administrative remedies is an appealable final order if it effectively puts the plaintiff out of court for an indefinite and protracted period.
• The W. E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc.
  435 F.2d 656· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 77×
  The court held that Revlon infringed Bassett's trademark, was in contempt, and must provide a full accounting of profits, but reversed the denial of Bassett's claim for expenses in addition to the accounting.
• A Quaker Action Grp. v. Hickel
  421 F.2d 1111· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-24 ·cited 77×
  The court held that while the government has a paramount interest in presidential safety, it must provide factual support for claims that demonstrations threaten it, rather than relying on mere assertion. The preliminary injunction was modified to require advance notice of demons
• The Greater Iowa Corp. v. McLENDON
  378 F.2d 783· 8th Cir.· 1967-05-19 ·cited 77×
  The court held that plaintiffs, as neither purchasers nor sellers of the securities in question, lacked standing to bring claims under Sections 5(a), 17(a), and 10(b) of the Securities Acts, and also lacked standing to assert violations of Section 7 of the Investment Company Act
• Scherr v. Volpe
  466 F.2d 1027· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-04 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the defendants abused their discretion by failing to comply with NEPA's procedural requirements for an environmental impact statement, and that the district court did not err in issuing a preliminary injunction without requiring a security bond.
• Lathan v. Volpe
  455 F.2d 1111· 9th Cir.· 1971-11-15 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the state and federal highway officials must comply with the relocation assistance and environmental impact statement requirements of federal law before proceeding with further property acquisitions for the I-90 project.
• LeSPORTSAC, Inc. v. K Mart Corp.
  754 F.2d 71· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-24 ·cited 75×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that LeSportsac raised serious questions regarding trade dress infringement and that the balance of hardships tipped in its favor.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Coffey
  493 F.2d 1304· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-28 ·cited 75×
  The court held that corporate officials cannot be personally enjoined for corporate securities law violations unless they personally committed or knowingly participated in the violation. The court reversed the injunction against the appellants, finding no evidence of a fraudulent
• A. & E. Plastik PAK Co., Inc. v. Monsanto Co.
  396 F.2d 710· 9th Cir.· 1968-06-05 ·cited 75×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the arbitration of a crucial factual antitrust issue regarding the existence and extent of proprietary technology, which requires judicial determination.
• Baines v. City OF Danville
  337 F.2d 579· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-10 ·cited 74×
  The court granted petitions for rehearing in two specific cases to consider the effect of newly enacted legislation on the prior disposition.
• Fla. State Conf. OF THE Nat'l Ass'n FOR THE Advancement OF Colored People v. Browning
  522 F.3d 1153· 11th Cir.· 2008-04-03 ·cited 73×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that three civil rights organizations had Article III standing to challenge Florida's voter registration statute requiring first-time registrants to provide and match driver's license or Social Security numbers, but rever
• Harris Corp. v. Nat'l Iranian Radio & Television & Bank Melli Iran
  691 F.2d 1344· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 73×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding sufficient grounds for subject matter and personal jurisdiction under the FSIA and that Harris had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding fraud in the transaction.
• State OF Tex. v. Seatrain Int'l
  518 F.2d 175· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-28 ·cited 73×
  A federal court may issue a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending an FMC decision, even if joint sea/rail rates are involved, but the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction in this case.
• Yardley v. Ina Marie Albu
  826 So. 2d 467· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-09-20 ·cited 72×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Yardleys appeal a trial court's temporary injunction favoring their neighbors, the Albus, regarding use of a five-foot easement on the Yardleys' property. The appellate court reversed, holding that the injunction order failed to comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Ru
• Musto v. Am. Gen. Corp.
  861 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-15 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the insurance policy and summary plan descriptions clearly reserved the company's right to amend the medical insurance plan, including imposing premium contributions on retirees, and thus the retirees did not have vested rights to lifetime paid-up insurance.
• Kuzinich v. Cnty. OF Santa Clara
  689 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-13 ·cited 72×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper regarding the validity of the zoning ordinance and the equal protection claim, but affirmed the dismissal of the conspiracy claim and the immunity of local legislators for legislative acts.
• Planned Parenthood OF Minn., Inc. v. Citizens FOR Cmty. Action
  558 F.2d 861· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-10 ·cited 72×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction and erred in denying the motion to intervene. The appeal was not moot.
• Pauls v. The Sec'y OF the AIR Force
  457 F.2d 294· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-27 ·cited 72×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over most issues, as the order appealed was not a final judgment, but had jurisdiction over the interlocutory order granting injunctive relief. The court reversed the grant of injunctive relief.
• Unicon Mgmt. Corp. v. Koppers Co., Inc.
  366 F.2d 199· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-07 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to Koppers, as it was justified to prevent irreparable harm and preserve the status quo pending trial.
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  595 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-21 ·cited 71×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing preliminary injunctions to preserve the status quo pending appeal of a state court judgment, as federal jurisdiction was proper and abstention doctrines did not apply.
• Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. AVIS, Inc.
  316 F.2d 804· 9th Cir.· 1963-04-22 ·cited 71×
  The court held that a judge abused their discretion by dissolving a preliminary injunction and issuing a new one, as it improperly granted full relief and disregarded the prior judge's order without sufficient cause.
• Luther F. Grant and Sirrka v. Grant
  282 F.2d 165· 2d Cir.· 1960-07-28 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the order denying the government's motion to dissolve a stay and vacate an order to show cause in a pre-indictment motion to suppress evidence is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc.
  772 F.2d 1423· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-13 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of trademark infringement, contempt, and the issuance of a permanent injunction, holding that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that Euroquilt's arguments regarding representation and injunction v
• Cerro Metal Prods. v. Marshall
  620 F.2d 964· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 70×
  The dissenting judge holds that the original version of § 1903.4 permitted ex parte warrants, making the injunctions improper due to lack of probable success on the merits.
• Wainwright Sec. Inc. v. Wall St. Transcript Corp. & Richard A. Holman
  558 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 70×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the defendant's publication of abstracts of plaintiff's copyrighted research reports constituted copyright infringement and was not protected by the fair use doctrine or the First Amendment.
• Lewis v. Kugler
  446 F.2d 1343· 3d Cir.· 1971-08-04 ·cited 70×
  The court held that federal courts should not abstain from hearing federal constitutional claims under the Civil Rights Act, but may dismiss claims seeking injunctions or declaratory relief against pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of bad faith or harassment. I
• Demos v. Walker
  99 Fla. 302· Fla.· 1930-02-08 ·cited 69×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this equity case, Demos sought to enjoin the sale of Sarasota County lands under an execution obtained by Mrs. Walker against the judgment debtor Petroutsa. The trial court denied Demos's motions for extension of time to take testimony and for dismissal without prejudice, inst
• Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc.
  817 F. Supp. 1558· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-13 ·cited 68×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher
  605 F.2d 1130· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, but that the specific requirement to insert hyphens in written and oral references to the defendants' mark was an abuse of discretion and should be eliminated.
• Graham v. Edwards
  472 So. 2d 803· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-07-02 ·cited 67×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a preliminary injunction granted to developer John Edwards against the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, holding that Edwards failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The court a
• Retired Persons Pharmacy v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  519 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-02 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the union and by interrogating employees, as the employer failed to establish a good faith doubt of the union's majority status and the interrogation was coercive.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cont'l Commodities Corp.
  497 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-17 ·cited 67×
  The court held that both the commodities trading scheme and the promissory notes issued by Continental Commodities could be considered securities, reversing the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
• Hapney v. Cent. Garage, Inc.
  579 So. 2d 127· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-02-01 ·cited 66×·via Temporary Injunction
  Hapney, a former employee of Gulfcoast Auto, signed a non-compete covenant restricting his work within a three-year period and geographic area. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's temporary injunction, holding that an employee covenant not to co
• T.J. Cunningham v. Adams
  808 F.2d 815· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 66×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because the appellant failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Smith Int'l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co.
  718 F.2d 1573· Fed. Cir.· 1983-10-06 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction based on a mistaken requirement to prove the extent of infringement before issuing the injunction, and that a strong showing of patent validity and infringement creates a presumption of irreparable h
• Allen G. Charles, M.D. v. Carey
  627 F.2d 772· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-29 ·cited 66×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that certain provisions of the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, particularly those related to informed consent and waiting periods, impose unconstitutional burdens on a woman's right to an abortion and are subject to strict scrutiny.
• Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Farrow
  580 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 66×
  The court noted that the obscurity of federal regulations created unnecessary burdens on parties and the judicial system.
• Dopp v. Franklin Nat'l Bank
  461 F.2d 873· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his securities law claim or irreparable injury, thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Cont'l OIL Co. v. The Frontier Ref. Co.
  338 F.2d 780· 10th Cir.· 1964-12-01 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction without requiring a bond, and the form of the order was fair.
• Benson Hotel Corp. v. Woods
  168 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1948-06-11 ·cited 66×
  The court affirmed the interlocutory judgment granting a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellate court's role is to review the trial court's discretion, not to decide the merits of the case.
• The Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan
  99 Fla. 1296· Fla.· 1930-06-06 ·cited 66×·via Temporary Injunction
  Seaboard Oil Company sought an injunction to enforce an exclusive gasoline supply contract against the Donovans, who had ceased purchasing from Seaboard and were selling competing products. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the temporary injunction, finding that Se
• Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts v. Consorcio Barr, S.A.
  320 F.3d 1205· 11th Cir.· 2003-02-05 ·cited 65×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  Four Seasons sought a preliminary injunction against Consorcio for allegedly gaining unauthorized access to its computer network in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other statutes. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and vacated the injunction, holding that the distric
• Reuben Palmer v. City OF Chicago
  806 F.2d 1316· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 65×
  An order to pay interim attorney's fees is appealable under the collateral order doctrine if the party ordered to pay faces irreparable harm from immediate payment that cannot be recovered if the order is later reversed.
• Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
  714 F.2d 1240· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 65×
  The court held that computer operating system programs, whether in object code or embedded in ROM, are copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act.