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

• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Am. Metals Exch. Corp.
  991 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment but vacated the disgorgement orders, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of disgorgement based on ill-gotten gains.
• Helen B. Barnes, M.D. v. Moore
  970 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-17 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The Mississippi Informed Consent to Abortion Act is facially constitutional under the standard set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
• United States v. Gibbons
  968 F.2d 639· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts for mail fraud, wire fraud, criminal contempt, and currency structuring, and that the supplemental jury instruction was proper.
• Scattergood v. Perelman
  945 F.2d 618· 3d Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot because the merger has occurred, and that the plaintiffs' federal securities claims based on a misleading proxy statement and pre-merger misrepresentations in a freeze-out merger are barred by the
• Scarbrough v. Meeks
  582 So. 2d 95· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-06-26 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  John Scarbrough appeals a permanent injunction entered against him by the trial court, claiming violation of due process rights and improper denial of his motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed that the complaint states a cause of action for injunctive relief but reverse
• Mitch Paulsen v. Cnty. OF Nassau
  925 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Nassau County Veterans Memorial Coliseum's sidewalk and mall areas constitute a public forum by government designation, and a complete ban on noncommercial leafletting is an impermissible abridgement of expression.
• Town OF W. Hartford v. Operation Rescue
  915 F.2d 92· 2d Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's allegation of property deprivation due to extortion was not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.
• W. Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Rose ART Indus., Inc.
  910 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding the source of the defendant's product, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Reuters Ltd. v. United Press Int'l, Inc.
  903 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1990-05-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction, as UPI demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm and sufficiently serious questions going to the merits with a favorable balance of hardships.
• United Offshore Co. v. S. Deepwater Pipeline Co.
  899 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-30 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  When parties agree to arbitrate disputes involving contract interpretation, they do not agree to arbitrate matters not governed by the contract itself.
• Nordin v. Nutri/System, Inc.
  897 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the district court's order enjoining arbitration and denying the motion to compel arbitration, but not the order denying the venue transfer. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no agreement to arbitrate the
• Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Signalmen
  882 F.2d 778· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a dispute over whether unions could engage in a sympathy strike was a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending arbitration.
• Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc.
  878 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's preliminary injunction order was not sufficiently explained to allow for appellate review, requiring a remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law, but the injunction would remain in place pending the supplementary opinion.
• Anderson v. Stephens
  875 F.2d 76· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that checks deposited after a freeze order was issued should be returned to the originating investors, not included in a pro rata distribution to all investors.
• Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole
  870 F.2d 1419· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Congress's enactment of Section 114, mandating the H-3 highway construction notwithstanding Section 4(f) requirements, was constitutional and rendered the remaining environmental challenges moot, thus affirming the dismissal of the complaint and the lifting of
• Leonard v. Floretta McKENZIE
  869 F.2d 1558· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Prospect Learning Center was an appropriate educational placement for Brandon and that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Dumas v. Stefan Gommerman
  865 F.2d 1093· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 1976 Copyright Act distinguishes between works prepared by employees and commissioned works, and that the 'work for hire' doctrine under § 101(1) applies only to formal employees, not independent contractors, regardless of the level of supervision.
• Pelfresne v. Vill. OF Williams BAY
  865 F.2d 877· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits and would not suffer irreparable harm, while deferring the Anti-Injunction Act issue for further factfinding.
• DeWayne Moore v. Thieret
  862 F.2d 148· 7th Cir.· 1988-12-02 ·cited 10×
  The appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the plaintiff has been transferred to another prison and there is no indication he is likely to be returned to the original prison.
• Lone Star Steel Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am. & its Local Union 9313
  851 F.2d 1239· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-06 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the 'Leasing' clause of the 1974 NBCWA was not an object of the Union's strike and that Lone Star's antitrust claims lacked standing.
• Nat'l Distrib. Co., Inc. v. James B. Beam Distilling Co. & Nat'l Distillers Prods. Co.
  845 F.2d 307· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 10×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the Brand Withdrawal Act did not govern the parties' relationship after their written distribution contract expired and they proceeded on an at-will basis, thus the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Cook v. Voth
  522 So. 2d 899· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-02-26 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  In a family law appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that prevented the former wife from relocating with the parties' minor child from Hillsborough County to Collier County. The court held th
• Bean v. Indep. Am. Sav. Ass'n
  838 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted pending appeal to prevent foreclosure, as the appellant is likely to succeed on the merits of their jurisdictional argument.
• Fengler v. Numismatic Americana, Inc.
  832 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction cannot be issued without an evidentiary hearing when essential facts are in dispute, and must be supported by findings of fact.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  826 F.2d 1141· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-18 ·cited 10×
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a status quo injunction in a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, absent exigent circumstances.
• Braden L. Albert v. Carovano
  824 F.2d 1333· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the students' claims for failure to establish state action, finding sufficient evidence to raise a factual dispute regarding whether the state coerced or significantly encouraged the college's disciplinary actions.
• Inverness Corp. v. Whitehall Labs. & Am. Home Prods. Corp.
  819 F.2d 48· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its preliminary injunction, requiring a remand for further explanation.
• T.K. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Herman
  505 So. 2d 484· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-03-16 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  T.K. Communications (WSHE) appeals the denial of a temporary injunction against former disc jockeys who breached a non-compete covenant by accepting employment at a competing radio station within the restricted period. The court reverses, holding that the employees violated the n
• Collins v. Cnty. OF Kendall
  807 F.2d 95· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support an inference of bad faith prosecution, thus the district court properly abstained under the Younger doctrine.
• Am. Cyanamid Corp. v. Connaught Labs., Inc.
  800 F.2d 306· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trademark HibVAX does not infringe on HIB-IMUNE because the generic term 'Hib' cannot be exclusively appropriated and the suffixes 'VAX' and 'IMUNE' are dissimilar in sound and appearance, lacking likelihood of confusion.
• Sundor Brands, Inc. v. Borden, Inc.
  653 F. Supp. 86· M.D. Fla.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 10×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of confusion between the parties' products and trade dress, which constitutes irreparable injury.
• Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  780 F.2d 991· Fed. Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 10×
  The district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction and establishing an escrow account for royalty payments pendente lite, as the Lear decision does not permit a licensee to avoid the consequences of breaching a license agreement while challenging patent validity.
• Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  771 F.2d 409· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction without adequately considering the administrative record and vacated the order, remanding for an expedited hearing on the merits.
• Black United Fund OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Kean
  763 F.2d 156· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that because a new statute repealed the challenged law and substantially enlarged eligibility criteria for charitable organizations, the appellate court should not affirm the district court's preliminary injunction, as the basis for the injunction no longer existed
• Adultworld Bookstore dba Reliable Enters., Inc. v. The City OF Fresno
  758 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, as the plaintiff had not violated the ordinance before filing suit and the circumstances did not present a 'race to the courthouse' scenario. The court also found that the plaintiff had shown seri
• Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. Block
  755 F.2d 397· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not recognize an implied lender-borrower privilege, and Sharyland failed to demonstrate that its audit reports were confidential under FOIA exemption (b)(4).
• Am. Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Commc'ns, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of irreparable injury to support a preliminary injunction, reversing the district court's decision.
• Bill Blass, Ltd. v. SAZ Corp. & Zion
  751 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the unauthorized sale of goods bearing the Bill Blass trademark after license expiration.
• Chilcott v. Verne ORR
  747 F.2d 29· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the airman failed to show irreparable harm and because military discharge procedures do not violate due process or constitutional provisions against ex post facto laws.
• Nat'l Mar. Union v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.
  737 F.2d 1395· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not grant federal jurisdiction, and thus the injunction was void; however, criminal contempt convictions are not affected by the injunction's invalidity, but the individuals were entitled to a jury trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3692.
• Interox Am. v. PPG Indus., Inc.
  736 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding breach of contract and trade secret claims.
• Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Ernst
  453 So. 2d 99· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-06-26 ·cited 10×
  In this dissolution of marriage case, the trial court awarded the wife $500,000 in lump sum alimony (partially payable in 118 monthly installments) and reserved jurisdiction to award attorney's fees. The appellate court upheld the trial court's subsequent orders fixing attorney's
• Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donovan
  733 F.2d 920· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 10×
  The Court of Appeals holds that the District Court erred in recharacterizing the appellants' motion as one for preliminary injunction and remands for the District Court to determine if the Secretary violated the prior mandate.
• Juarez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  732 F.2d 58· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the petitioner had not exhausted his administrative remedies.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Prof'l Assocs. & Robert C. LaBine
  731 F.2d 349· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in considering extrinsic evidence to determine if investments were securities and did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
• Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  732 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in enjoining the State from spending its own funds on preliminary design and engineering work for the Westway project, as this prohibition was not supported by the prior orders or the partnership rationale.
• Meyers v. Shearn Moody, Jr.
  723 F.2d 388· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction restraining the appellant from disposing of assets pending satisfaction of a judgment.
• Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharm. Co., Inc.
  719 F.2d 56· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against Bolar for imitating Ciba's trade dress.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Virgin Islands Paving, Inc.
  714 F.2d 283· 3d Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the District Court of the Virgin Islands erred by applying the traditional federal standard for preliminary injunctions instead of the statutory standard provided by the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act, which requires a prima facie showing of a viol
• Zenith Radio Corp. v. The United States
  710 F.2d 806· Fed. Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court must reconsider Zenith's motion for a preliminary injunction, evaluating all factors, not just irreparable harm.