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

• Mattel, Inc. v. Azrak-Hamway Int'l, Inc.
  724 F.2d 357· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Mattel's request for a preliminary injunction because Mattel failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on its copyright and trademark claims, or that serious questions were raised for litigation.
• In re the Complaint of Bowoon Sangsa Co., Ltd. v. Micronesian Indus. Corp.
  720 F.2d 595· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 12×
  The Palauan High Court, as a court of a foreign country, is not subject to restraining orders issued by United States District Courts in limitation proceedings.
• Hernandez v. Deputy Ward
  437 So. 2d 781· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-09-16 ·cited 12×
  Hernandez challenged a trial court's dismissal of his preliminary injunction motion and the defendant's motion to dismiss in a replevin action seeking return of seized photographic materials. The court reversed because the trial court denied him due process by failing to provide
• Movie Sys., Inc. v. MAD Minneapolis Audio Distribs.
  717 F.2d 427· 8th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's order, which clarified a preliminary injunction by making its sales prohibition absolute, constituted a modification and was therefore appealable. The modification was justified by the defendants' post-injunction sales activities.
• Leschniok v. Heckler
  713 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Secretary violated 42 U.S.C. § 425(b) by failing to consider it when terminating disability benefits for individuals in vocational rehabilitation programs. The court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Laurenzo v. Miss. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc.
  708 F.2d 1038· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·cited 12×
  A party is not considered a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 solely because they obtained an injunction pending appeal based on a substantial case and balance of equities, without a determination of the merits.
• Thigpen v. United States Parole Comm'n
  707 F.2d 973· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 12×
  The Parole Commission has the authority to withdraw an executed parole violator warrant and hold it in abeyance pending the outcome of related state criminal charges, even after a constitutionally infirm revocation hearing has occurred.
• Itek Corp. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Boston
  704 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a subsequent Treasury regulation, which barred final judicial judgments disposing of Iranian interests in standby letters of credit, applied to the district court's judgment even though it was rendered before the regulation's amendment, requiring the judgment
• Chesler v. Hyman B. Hendler
  428 So. 2d 730· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-03-16 ·cited 12×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves appeals from non-final orders in a complex corporate litigation. The appellate court reviewed orders related to a temporary injunction, appointment of a receiver, dismissal of a complaint, and disqualification of counsel, ultimately affirming the dissolution of
• Signode Corp. v. Weld-Loc Sys., Inc.
  700 F.2d 1108· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-23 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that Signode failed to establish irreparable harm because the appellees have sufficient financial resources to cover potential damages, and lost sales of unpatented supplies are not compensable in a patent infringement case.
• SAN Francisco Real Est. Invs. v. Real Est. Inv. Tr. OF Am.
  692 F.2d 814· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 12×
  A district court's temporary restraining order extending a tender offer's proration date is improper and appealable if it functions as a preliminary injunction.
• The Better Bus. Bureau OF Metro. Houston, Inc. v. Med. Directors, Inc.
  681 F.2d 397· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court correctly found the advertisements misleading and likely to cause confusion, the preliminary injunction was overly broad in its prohibition of any mention of the Better Business Bureau. The injunction was modified to allow such mention
• James River Flood Control Ass'n v. Watt
  680 F.2d 543· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 12×
  The court granted the stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction because the appellants met the required burden, and the balance of equities favored the United States.
• NEW York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v. Blum
  678 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-04 ·cited 12×
  The court dismissed the interlocutory appeal because the certified question was not ripe for review, as the district court had not definitively ruled on the merits of the standing or the alleged conflict with the PSRO Act, and the issue might be moot.
• In the Matter of: William S. Ellis, Jr. v. Corey
  674 F.2d 1238· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the March 1971 conveyance of the Silversword Inn was a mortgage, not a sale, and reversed the bankruptcy court's judgment to the contrary. The court also vacated a writ of assistance based on that judgment and dismissed a third appeal as moot.
• Dep't OF Energy v. Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer
  673 F.2d 1287· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1982-03-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction was appealable as a final order and that the injunction was an abuse of discretion, vacating the order and remanding for dismissal.
• Knight v. The Shoshone & Arapahoe Indian Tribes of the Wind River Reservation
  670 F.2d 900· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 12×
  Indian tribes possess inherent sovereign power to regulate land use by non-Indians on fee lands within reservation boundaries, and their zoning ordinance was a valid exercise of this power.
• Marathon OIL Co. v. Mobil Corp.
  669 F.2d 378· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Mobil's proposed acquisition of Marathon under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
• Douglas W. Wohlfahrt, M.D. v. Mem'l Med. Ctr.
  658 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-08 ·cited 12×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed, but the dismissal of the action is vacated and remanded because the district court improperly considered the merits without sufficient notice to the plaintiff.
• Foley v. The Ala. State BAR
  648 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the state action exemption barred the antitrust claims, but that the First Amendment claims were improperly decided on summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues.
• Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle
  641 F.2d 104· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Chevron does not possess a property right in the test data submitted to the EPA, either under federal law or state law, that would prevent the agency from using such data internally for registration purposes.
• Robert M. v. Benton
  622 F.2d 370· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked clear jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court's order was not a final judgment, but might have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the order is construed as an injunction.
• Punnett v. Carter
  621 F.2d 578· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-13 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Goldberg v. Simoni
  601 F.2d 653· 2d Cir.· 1979-06-28 ·cited 12×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court's abstention order, which stayed proceedings pending state court determination of state law issues, is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as a denial of a temporary injunction.
• Oakwood Manor, Inc. v. ECK
  358 So. 2d 585· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-05-10 ·cited 12×·via Temporary Injunction
  Oakwood Manor appeals a judgment denying damages on an injunction bond posted by S & E Enterprises when S & E obtained a temporary injunction against Oakwood in 1971. The court reverses and remands, holding that the dismissal of S & E's underlying suit does not automatically esta
• United States v. McBRIDE
  560 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 12×
  A federal prisoner cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge a pre-guideline sentence based on the Parole Commission's subsequent application of new guidelines that frustrate the sentencing judge's expectations. The Parole Commission's authority to alter policies does not render a
• Am. Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Burlington N., Inc.
  551 F.2d 749· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction, as the train dispatchers would not suffer irreparable injury and the railroad had the power to consolidate its offices.
• Canadian Transp. Co. v. Irving Tr. Co.
  548 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court was justified in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff had not met the tests for such an injunction and there appeared to be an adequate remedy at law.
• Shelton v. The Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  539 F.2d 1197· 9th Cir.· 1976-02-23 ·cited 12×
  An NCAA rule making a student ineligible for intercollegiate athletics if they have ever signed a professional sports contract is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of preserving amateurism and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
• Windsor Power House Coal Co. v. Dist. 6 United Mine Workers OF Am.
  530 F.2d 312· 4th Cir.· 1976-02-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was properly issued because the refusal to cross a stranger picket line was subject to the labor contract's arbitration clause, and the contempt order was civil in nature and thus not presently appealable.
• Am. Home Inv. Co. v. Gontran T. Bedel
  525 F.2d 1022· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-03 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show a substantial probability of success on the merits.
• USM Corp. v. Standard Pressed Steel Co.
  524 F.2d 1097· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that entitlement to royalties accruing during patent litigation does not depend on whether they have been paid to the licensor, and thus a preliminary injunction is not necessary to secure potential refunds.
• Soldevila v. Sec'y OF Agric. OF the United States
  512 F.2d 427· 1st Cir.· 1975-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the appellee failed to demonstrate extraordinary harm and had not exhausted administrative remedies.
• Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Teamsters Local NO. 633
  511 F.2d 1097· 1st Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the employer's claimed injury from employees wearing tank-tops pending arbitration was not sufficiently irreparable to justify injunctive relief under the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
• Meeropol v. Nizer
  505 F.2d 232· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to stay the Connecticut action once Fawcett intervened in the New York action, and that the stay was a proper exercise of discretion.
• N.J. Chapter Inc. of the Am. Physical Therapy Ass'n, Inc. v. The Prudential Life Ins. Co. OF Am.
  502 F.2d 500· D.C. Cir.· 1974-09-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Prudential's letter was an interpretation of the Medicare Act's reasonable cost limitation, not an agency regulation subject to APA notice-and-comment requirements, and affirmed the dismissal of the suit.
• Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  501 F.2d 894· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and that serious questions warranted further litigation.
• State OF Ohio ex rel. William J. Brown v. Callaway
  497 F.2d 1235· 6th Cir.· 1974-06-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in partially enjoining construction despite inadequate Environmental Impact Statements, it erred in denying intervention as of right to conservation groups, property owners, and the contractors association
• ST. Mary's Hosp. OF E. ST. Louis, Inc. v. Ogilvie
  496 F.2d 1324· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Economic Stabilization Act regulations applied to Medicaid reimbursements, requiring the hospital to follow administrative procedures for rate increases.
• Wooten v. The First Nat'l Bank OF ST. Paul
  490 F.2d 1275· 8th Cir.· 1974-02-01 ·cited 12×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that appeals from the dismissal of a party and the denial of a three-judge court are not reviewable without a final order, and affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction.
• Nurnberg v. Froehlke
  489 F.2d 843· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was a basis in fact to support the Army's finding that the petitioner's conscientious objector beliefs had matured prior to his enlistment, and that the lower court erred in imposing a higher burden of proof on the Army.
• Adele Proetta v. Dent
  484 F.2d 1146· 2d Cir.· 1973-09-19 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against the City and the EDA, finding insufficient nexus between the City and EDA for NEPA violations and no showing of irreparable harm for the EDA injunction.
• Davis v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp.
  483 F.2d 1014· 4th Cir.· 1973-08-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that preliminary injunctive relief was improperly granted because the alleged oral agreements were barred by the Statute of Frauds and the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits.
• Ronson Corp. v. Liquifin Aktiengesellschaft
  483 F.2d 846· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, finding no reversible error in its conclusion that the plaintiff met its burden under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. PepsiCo, Inc.
  477 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-03 ·cited 12×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a preliminary injunction to prevent PepsiCo from exercising control over Rheingold was not warranted because the FTC failed to demonstrate that effective divestiture would be virtually impossible without such an injunction.
• Morris v. Mich. State Bd. OF Educ.
  472 F.2d 1207· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction regarding sex discrimination in noncontact interscholastic sports, but the injunction must be modified to exclude contact sports.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Koenig
  469 F.2d 198· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining securities law violations and appointing a receiver, finding sufficient undisputed evidence to support the findings and that the relief granted was proper.
• Clean AIR Coordinating Comm. v. Roth-Adam Fuel Co.
  465 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-03 ·cited 12×
  The Federal Anti-injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless expressly authorized by Congress, and the Clean Air Act does not provide such authorization.
• United States v. Dinneen
  463 F.2d 1036· 10th Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for criminal contempt, and that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
• P. Daussa Corp. & Sutton Cosmetics, Inc. v. Sutton Cosmetics (P.R.) Inc.
  462 F.2d 134· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that confusing similarity between marks, coupled with priority of use, is sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction in a trademark case.