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

• Laboratorios Roldan v. Tex Int'l, Inc.
  902 F. Supp. 1555· S.D. Fla.· 1995-09-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction because it has shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on its Lanham Act claim due to the defendants' confusingly similar trade dress and trademark use.
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. O'Brien
  660 So. 2d 364· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-09-13 ·cited 11×·via Temporary Injunction
  The trial court abused its discretion by denying a temporary injunction to enforce county ordinances, as the government is presumed to suffer irreparable harm when seeking to enforce its police power.
• Sylvio Tabet v. Tabet
  644 So. 2d 557· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-10-12 ·cited 11×·via Temporary Injunction
  A judgment creditor sought to enforce a California divorce judgment against his ex-wife's property interest in Florida real estate titled to a German entity. The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that a judgment deb
• Concerned Parents to Save Dreher Park Ctr. v. City of W. Palm Beach
  846 F. Supp. 986· S.D. Fla.· 1994-03-01 ·cited 11×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the elimination of recreational programs for individuals with disabilities violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and granted a preliminary injunction.
• Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.
  977 F.2d 1510· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-20 ·cited 11×
  Disassembly of copyrighted computer object code is a fair use if it's the only means to access unprotected elements and the copier has a legitimate reason. A computer manufacturer's use of a security system that displays its trademark upon cartridge insertion does not violate the
• Atari Games Corp. & Tengen, Inc. v. Nintendo OF Am. Inc.
  975 F.2d 832· Fed. Cir.· 1992-09-10 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding Nintendo likely to succeed on its copyright infringement claim for unauthorized copying of its IONES program.
• Sandoz Pharms. Corp. v. Richardson-Vicks, Inc.
  902 F.2d 222· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 11×
  A Lanham Act plaintiff must prove that advertising claims are literally false or misleading to the public, not merely that they are inadequately substantiated under FDA guidelines.
• Atari Games Corp. & Tengen, Inc. v. Nintendo OF Am., Inc.
  897 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1990-03-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction without sufficient factual findings and a proper legal basis.
• DOE v. The City OF Butler
  892 F.2d 315· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the transitional dwelling provisions of the City of Butler zoning ordinance do not violate plaintiffs’ due process rights, freedom of association, or the sex discrimination prohibition of The Fair Housing Act. However, the case is remanded for further consider
• SEA Containers Ltd. v. Stena AB
  890 F.2d 1205· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against Stena's tender offer, as it lacked a legal basis, and that Stena failed to demonstrate sufficient irreparable harm to warrant a preliminary injunction requiring further disclosures under the
• Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp.
  888 F.2d 609· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-18 ·cited 11×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against Melville's use of a trademark logo format confusingly similar to Vision's VSW logo, affirming both the trademark infringement and trade dress claims.
• Salim Tabsch v. Nojaim
  548 So. 2d 851· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-09-12 ·cited 11×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that while an injunction was appropriate, the trial court erred in not allowing sufficient funds for corporate obligations and in failing to require an injunction bond.
• In re Heritage Vill. Church & Missionary Fellowship, Inc. v. United States
  851 F.2d 104· 4th Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court lacked the authority to issue a preliminary injunction restraining the IRS from revoking the debtor's tax-exempt status due to the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Mid-Florida AT Eustis v. Griffin
  521 So. 2d 357· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-03-10 ·cited 11×·via Temporary Injunction
  Mid-Florida appeals from a temporary injunction requiring it to remove a fence and dirt barrier on its airport property and maintain aircraft access to Griffin's leased properties. The appellate court vacates the injunction, finding that Griffin failed to establish a clear legal
• The Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie
  812 F.2d 1097· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-04 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the tribe failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits for its claims, and thus was not entitled to a preliminary injunction against the Bureau's office relocation.
• Dynamics Corp. OF Am. v. CTS Corp.
  805 F.2d 705· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 11×
• Johnson & Johnson Prods., Inc. v. DAL Int'l Trading Co.
  798 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-11 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court erred in imposing a duty to inquire on a good faith purchaser under the UCC, and the record did not support a finding that Quality King suspected fraud.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chem. & OIL Corp.
  786 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-21 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction but dismissed the appeal of the seizure order for lack of jurisdiction, finding the latter not appealable as an interlocutory or collateral order.
• Joseph Scott Co. v. Scott Swimming Pools, Inc.
  764 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted due to likely confusion, its scope was overly broad in restricting the use of Joseph Jr.'s personal name, and modified the injunction to allow more latitude with a clear disclaimer.
• Kruse v. Snowshoe Co.
  715 F.2d 120· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction and refusing to abstain from exercising jurisdiction due to parallel state litigation.
• Paco Rabanne Parfums, S.A. v. Norco Enters., Inc.
  680 F.2d 891· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction for trade dress imitation does not need to prove side-by-side sales if there is evidence of deliberate copying and market overlap.
• Arrow United Indus., Inc. v. Hugh Richards, Inc.
  678 F.2d 410· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-06 ·cited 11×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  A preliminary injunction against misbranding products as one's own is affirmed due to likely irreparable harm from unfair market entry, but an injunction against fulfilling contracts is vacated as potential lost sales are compensable by damages.
• Louis v. Meissner
  532 F. Supp. 881· S.D. Fla.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that judicial review of exclusion proceedings is limited to habeas corpus after a final order of exclusion is entered, and that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge procedures prior to such an order.
• Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt
  670 F.2d 1213· D.C. Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Park Service regulations prohibiting camping in non-designated areas do not encompass sleeping in symbolic tents, as it is a form of expressive conduct related to the demonstration's message.
• Pollgreen v. Morris
  496 F. Supp. 1042· S.D. Fla.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that due process requires a prompt post-seizure hearing for vessels seized under immigration laws, and that the administrative procedures offered were inadequate or unavailable.
• Collum v. Edwards
  578 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving a preliminary injunction when the party seeking it failed to comply with the terms of a consent order, but the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was improper as no trial on the merits had occu
• United States Postal Serv. v. Beamish
  466 F.2d 804· 3d Cir.· 1972-09-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the standard for a preliminary injunction under 39 U.S.C. § 3007 requires only a showing of probable cause to believe a violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005 has occurred, not a showing of irreparable harm.
• AAA Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Morse Taxi & Baggage Transfer, Inc.
  204 So. 2d 902· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-12-05 ·cited 11×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves an interlocutory appeal challenging a temporary injunction and an order permitting intervention. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no clear abuse of discretion.
• United States v. First Nat'l City Bank
  321 F.2d 14· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-26 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court had the power to issue an injunction restraining a bank from disposing of a taxpayer's property, even if held by its foreign branches, as long as the bank itself was subject to the court's personal jurisdiction.
• Henry v. Greenville Airport Comm'n
  284 F.2d 631· 4th Cir.· 1960-12-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a district court has no discretion to deny a preliminary injunction when a plaintiff clearly establishes denial of a constitutional right by undisputed evidence.
• Croton Watch Co., Inc. v. Laughlin
  208 F.2d 93· 2d Cir.· 1953-11-12 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the acting collector's refusal to permit importation of watches marked 'Nivada Grenchen' was unlawful, and a preliminary injunction should have been granted against him. However, the denial of a preliminary injunction against the trademark owner was affirmed.
• Wing v. Arnall
  198 F.2d 571· Emer. Ct. App.· 1952-08-21 ·cited 11×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary injunction against a price regulation should be denied unless the complainants are reasonably certain to succeed on final hearing, considering equity principles and stabilization objectives.
• Brown v. THE City OF Tampa
  149 Fla. 482· Fla.· 1942-02-10 ·cited 11×·via Temporary Injunction
  A municipal ordinance making the sale of alcoholic beverages unlawful on Sunday was invalid and unenforceable because the ordinance was defeated in a city-wide election and the happening of the contingency condition making it effective was never established, despite ambiguity whe
• City of Tarpon Springs v. Chrysostomides
  108 Fla. 500· Fla.· 1933-03-01 ·cited 11×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court reversed a lower court's grant of a temporary injunction that prevented the collection of personal property taxes via a distress warrant. The appellate court found the bill of complaint lacked equity, meaning no valid legal grounds existed for the injunction.
• Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd v. State Surgeon Gen.
  55 F.4th 1312· 11th Cir.· 2022-12-22 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the appeal from a preliminary injunction was not moot, despite the plaintiff's suggestion of mootness based on temporarily suspending its challenged policy, because the plaintiff had not met its heavy burden of establishing that the policy would not
• Common Cause Georgia v. Sec'y, State of Ga.
  17 F.4th 102· 11th Cir.· 2021-10-28 ·cited 10×
  A party obtaining a temporary restraining order that materially alters the legal relationship and provides merits-based relief is a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Saidin v. Jorg Korecki
  202 So. 3d 468· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-11-04 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  Appellant Saidin appeals a post-judgment non-final order granting temporary injunctive relief and determining liability in favor of the Koreckis. The court affirms the grant of injunctive relief but reverses and remands regarding the inadequate $100 bond amount, dismissing as non
• Smart Pharmacy, Inc. v. Viccari
  213 So. 3d 986· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-05-31 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  Smart Pharmacy appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for a temporary injunction against a former employee and his new employer for breach of a noncompete agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The appellate court reversed, holding that Smart Pharmacy establish
• MDS (Canada), Inc. v. Rad Source Techs., Inc.
  822 F. Supp. 2d 1263· S.D. Fla.· 2011-09-30 ·cited 10×
  The court found that the RS 3400 does not embody the patents licensed under the agreement, and thus Rad Source can market it, subject to a right of first negotiation. The non-compete provision expired by its own terms.
• Murray Bieda v. Mimi Bieda
  42 So. 3d 859· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-08-11 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this family law appeal, a former husband challenges temporary injunctions freezing his bank accounts and a final judgment for support arrearages entered ex parte without notice. The court reversed, finding the injunction orders legally insufficient under Florida Rule of Civil
• Haddad v. Arnold
  784 F. Supp. 2d 1284· M.D. Fla.· 2010-07-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to sue and that preliminary injunctive relief was warranted, finding that unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the ADA.
• Complete Angler, LLC v. City of Clearwater
  607 F. Supp. 2d 1326· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the city's application of its sign code to a mural and a First Amendment banner was content-based and failed strict scrutiny, warranting a preliminary injunction.
• Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. D & D Donuts, Inc.
  566 F. Supp. 2d 1350· M.D. Fla.· 2008-07-22 ·cited 10×
  The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition claims.
• Schiavo Ex Rel. Schindler v. Schiavo
  357 F. Supp. 2d 1378· M.D. Fla.· 2005-03-22 ·cited 10×
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
• Riverland & Indian SUN L.C. v. L.J. Melody & Co.
  879 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-08-11 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  A temporary injunction imposing a constructive trust on commission funds identified in a brokerage agreement is proper where the broker is named beneficiary of a particular fund to be set aside at closing.
• THE Stephan Co. v. Faulding Healthcare (IP) Holdings, Inc.
  844 So. 2d 676· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-04-16 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary injunction was erroneously granted because there was no indication of future harm or a likelihood of repeated infringing activity.
• Miller v. Jacobs & Goodman, P.A.
  699 So. 2d 729· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-07-25 ·cited 10×
  Miller and Rand, departing associates from law firm Jacobs & Goodman, challenged the enforceability of their employment agreements requiring them to pay 75% of client fees if clients followed them to their new firm. The court upheld the validity of such fee-splitting agreements b
• Leibowitz v. The City OF Miami Beach
  683 So. 2d 204· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-11-27 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Leibowitzes obtained a temporary injunction against Miami Beach, but the city dissolved it and sought attorney's fees. The court upheld the award of fees exceeding the bond amount but reversed because the trial court improperly based the hourly rate on the city attorney's sal
• AOT, Inc. v. Hampshire Mgmt. Co.
  653 So. 2d 476· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-04-12 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  AOT, Inc. appealed the setting of an injunction bond in a case involving competing flea market operations in a shopping center. The court affirmed the temporary injunction but reversed the bond amount because the trial court failed to follow proper procedures by allowing both par
• Med. Facilities Dev., Inc. v. Little ARCH Creek Props., Inc.
  656 So. 2d 1300· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-03-15 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  Medical Facilities Development, Inc. filed a lis pendens against property owned by Little Arch Creek Properties, Inc. to preserve its claim in a specific performance action, preventing LACPI from completing a sale to another buyer. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed th