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

• Ga. Advocacy Off. v. Jackson
  4 F.4th 1200· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-14 ·cited 13×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that a preliminary injunction in this Prison Litigation Reform Act case expired by operation of law 90 days after entry because the district court failed to enter a permanent injunction following a trial on the merits, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(
• Quirch Foods LLC v. Broce
  314 So. 3d 327· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-10-14 ·cited 13×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the employer had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in enforcing non-compete and non-solicitation agreements against former employees. The court determined that the restri
• Galencare, Inc. v. Bayfront HMA Med. Ctr, LLC
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-01-02 ·cited 13×·via Temporary Injunction
  A competitor hospital seeking a temporary injunction against a rival's provisional trauma center operations failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because the statutory framework does not require the Department to consider whether trauma center posi
• Medco Data, LLC v. Bailey
  152 So. 3d 105· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-11-26 ·cited 13×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to apply the statutory presumption of irreparable injury when considering a motion for temporary injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant.
• Randolph v. Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp.
  903 So. 2d 384· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-06-17 ·cited 13×·via Temporary Injunction
  Appellants Randolph appealed from a temporary injunction order granted in favor of Antioch Farms Feed & Grain Corp. and Tony Sills. The appellate court affirmed the injunction but remanded for the trial court to enter proper factual findings and set an appropriate bond, as requir
• Charlotte Cnty. v. Richard Vetter for the Charlotte Cnty. Park of Commerce, LLC
  863 So. 2d 465· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-01-21 ·cited 13×
  Charlotte County challenges a preliminary injunction requiring it to approve subdivision and site plan applications for an industrial park near the county airport. The court affirms the preliminary injunction to the extent it requires the county to expeditiously process permit ap
• Diginet v. W. Union ATS
  958 F.2d 1388· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-09 ·cited 13×
  The court should certify issues of state law to the Illinois Supreme Court rather than deciding them itself.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Univ. Health, Inc.
  938 F.2d 1206· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 13×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that Section 7 of the Clayton Act applies to asset acquisitions by nonprofit hospitals and that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Th
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep't OF Revenue OF The State OF Wash.
  934 F.2d 1064· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-24 ·cited 13×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by referring the entire case to a special master, as no exceptional circumstances justified such a broad delegation of judicial authority.
• Artist M. v. Johnson
  917 F.2d 980· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-29 ·cited 13×
  The 'reasonable efforts' clause of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 is too ambiguous to create an enforceable right under the Act or § 1983.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. NEW York State Dep't OF Labor
  891 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 13×
  The dissent argues that New York's prevailing wage law is not preempted by ERISA because it regulates labor costs and only incidentally affects employee benefit plans.
• Plaza Health Labs., Inc. v. Perales
  878 F.2d 577· 2d Cir.· 1989-06-21 ·cited 13×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaza's motion for a preliminary injunction, as Plaza failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its due process and ex post facto claims.
• Webster v. Sowders
  846 F.2d 1032· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that interim attorney fees and expert monitor costs awarded without findings on liability are not appealable interlocutorily and must be reversed and remanded. The court also held that a district court cannot impose Rule 11 sanctions for filing an appeal.
• Lewellen v. Raff
  843 F.2d 1103· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the state criminal prosecution, but erred in denying absolute prosecutorial immunity for claims arising from electronic surveillance.
• United States v. Dedra Estell Overton
  834 F.2d 1171· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the balance of harms weighed against granting it due to the timing.
• Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. v. Parfums de Coeur, Ltd.
  824 F.2d 665· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying most of Calvin Klein's motions for preliminary injunctions, but vacated an overbroad injunction paragraph.
• United States v. Ianniello
  824 F.2d 203· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver for Umberto's Clam House and in assessing the costs of the receivership against the government pending trial.
• Deaver v. Seymour
  822 F.2d 66· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-15 ·cited 13×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael Deaver's request for a preliminary injunction to prevent independent counsel from seeking an indictment.
• Madrigal Audio Labs., Inc. v. Cello, Ltd.
  799 F.2d 814· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that an individual who sells the right to use his personal name as a trade name is not barred from advertising his affiliation with a competing company, provided there is no false designation of origin or likelihood of consumer confusion.
• Maxim's Ltd. v. Badonsky
  772 F.2d 388· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear probability of success on the merits and the balance of harms did not sufficiently favor the plaintiff.
• City OF Alexandria v. Helms
  728 F.2d 643· 4th Cir.· 1984-02-28 ·cited 13×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction because the FAA's decision to authorize a temporary flight pattern test constituted a final order reviewable exclusively by the Courts of Appeals, and the National Environmental Policy Act did not provide an
• Biscayne Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd. & Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
  720 F.2d 1499· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-29 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court lacked the authority to remove the FSLIC as receiver or order the return of assets because the statutory grounds for appointment were met, and judicial review is limited to determining the existence of those grounds.
• Am. Motors Sales Corp. v. Runke
  708 F.2d 202· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit enjoining state administrative proceedings and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction due to a conflict between state and federal law, but the injunction was overly br
• LeBEAU v. Spirito
  703 F.2d 639· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the adequacy of AFDC benefit reduction notices.
• Inez Wright v. Regan
  656 F.2d 820· D.C. Cir.· 1981-06-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing because they did not allege a concrete and direct injury resulting from the IRS's tax exemption policies for discriminatory schools.
• Gilley v. United States
  649 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1981-05-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a tenured federal employee seeking to enjoin a transfer pending administrative appeal must meet stringent standards for irreparable harm, and that the claimed inconveniences and difficulties in pursuing an appeal do not constitute irreparable injury sufficient
• Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal Co. v. Turley
  622 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted for most claims, as contradictory inferences could be drawn regarding the confidentiality of customer information and unfair competition. The denial of a preliminary injunction was also vacated for reconsideration.
• Merrill Lynch v. Nat'l Ass'n OF Sec. Dealers, Inc.
  616 F.2d 1363· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the NASD's procedural ruling was not immediately reviewable and Merrill Lynch failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Al-Kim, Inc. v. The United States
  650 F.2d 944· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-11 ·cited 13×
  Third parties whose property is levied upon to satisfy another's tax liability cannot contest the merits of the tax assessment under 26 U.S.C. § 6213, but may seek relief under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 if the levy was wrongful.
• S. S. Kresge Co. v. United Factory Outlet, Inc.
  598 F.2d 694· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 13×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the term 'mart' is generic and thus not protectable as a trade name, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Gonzalez v. S. Methodist Univ.
  536 F.2d 1071· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-11 ·cited 13×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for her discrimination claim and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class action status.
• Washington v. Walker
  529 F.2d 1062· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-04 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or an inadequate legal remedy, and that the balance of hardships did not favor granting the injunction.
• Shannon v. United States
  521 F.2d 56· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-29 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the IRS levy against a transferee because the transferee was assessed the tax and could not challenge the assessment's validity under 26 U.S.C. § 7426, nor did she meet the stringent requirements for an exceptio
• Meis v. Sanitas Serv. Corp.
  511 F.2d 655· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-18 ·cited 13×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court did not err in issuing a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo pending trial, as the plaintiffs made a sufficient prima facie showing of potential success on the merits and the injunction was properly molded to the circumstances.
• Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick
  505 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-25 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte without notice or hearing, and that plaintiffs should have been given an opportunity to amend their complaint for injunctive relief and damages.
• Helfant v. Kugler
  500 F.2d 1188· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 13×
  The dissenting judge argues that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent bad faith, harassment, or truly extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here.
• Bonner-Lyons v. Sch. Comm. OF the City OF Boston
  480 F.2d 442· 1st Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 13×
  The court held that by disseminating notices opposing bussing, the school committee utilized the school distribution system as a forum for one viewpoint, thus violating the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause.
• A. T. Cross Co. v. Jonathan Bradley Pens, Inc.
  470 F.2d 689· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district judge's failure to explicitly state a likelihood of success on the merits did not require reversal of the preliminary injunction, as the record supported the injunction.
• The Comm. FOR Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Seaborg
  463 F.2d 796· D.C. Cir.· 1971-11-03 ·cited 13×
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary reversal of the denial of a preliminary injunction and denied their application for leave to appeal an interlocutory discovery order.
• The Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood OF Locomotive Firemen AND Enginemen
  357 F.2d 152· 6th Cir.· 1966-02-03 ·cited 13×
  A preliminary injunction cannot be granted without a hearing if there is a dispute over the facts.
• Gill v. City OF N. Miami Beach
  156 So. 2d 182· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-09-24 ·cited 13×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the election sought to be enjoined has already occurred.
• Hines v. Hester Dozer
  134 So. 2d 548· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-11-22 ·cited 13×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves a dispute over a recall election for city commissioners in Opa Locka, Florida. The court reversed a temporary injunction that had halted the recall process, finding the grounds for recall stated in the affidavit were sufficient to proceed.
• McBRIDE v. W. Union Tel. Co.
  171 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1948-12-01 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while it had jurisdiction over the appellant, the telegraph company was justified in discontinuing service due to illegal use by recipients, and thus the appellant was not entitled to a mandatory order for restoration.
• Grand Rapids Furniture Co. v. Grand Rapids Furniture Co.
  127 F.2d 245· 7th Cir.· 1942-04-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement because they shared a common cause of action and an undivided interest, analogous to a class action.
• Franklin TP. in Somerset Cnty. v. Tugwell Resettlement Administration
  85 F.2d 208· D.C. Cir.· 1936-05-18 ·cited 13×
  The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the bill of complaint, finding that the plaintiffs had stated a cause of action and that the trial court should not have passed upon the constitutional questions without a full hearing on the facts. The case was remanded for furth
• Head Kandy LLC v. McNeill
  2018 WL 6335178· S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's motion to vacate the preliminary injunction, while ultimately unsuccessful, was not frivolous or brought in bad faith, thus denying the plaintiff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
• Kilnapp v. Kilnapp
  140 So. 3d 1051· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-06-04 ·cited 12×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court held that the trial court violated the husband's due process rights by prematurely ending an evidentiary hearing without allowing him to present his evidence.
• Aveta Inc. v. C.A. No. 3598-VCL Roberto L. Bengoa
  2008 WL 5255818· Del. Ch.· 2009-12-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held the defendant in contempt for failing to comply with a prior order compelling arbitration. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the Total Proposal novated the original purchase agreement or that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce its order. Sanct
• Colonial Bank, N.A. v. Taylor Morrison Servs., Inc.
  10 So. 3d 653· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-04-03 ·cited 12×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction because the party seeking it did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Wachovia Bank v. Tien
  534 F. Supp. 2d 1267· S.D. Fla.· 2007-08-06 ·cited 12×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, requiring a trial to determine ownership of the disputed bank accounts.