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

• Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Md. State Bd. FOR Higher Educ.
  710 F.2d 170· 4th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from hearing the case, as neither Burford nor Pullman abstention doctrines applied. The court affirmed the denial of the default judgment motion.
• SAN Francisco Real Est. Invs. v. Real Est. Inv. Tr. OF Am.
  701 F.2d 1000· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying SFREI's motion for a preliminary injunction against the by-law and reversed that decision. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of an injunction against SFREI's tender offer, finding a likelihood of success on
• Spartacus, Inc. v. Borough OF McKEES Rocks
  694 F.2d 947· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• In re State OF S.D. v. Janklow
  692 F.2d 1158· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a writ of prohibition is not warranted because the district court's decision regarding the Eleventh Amendment was not a clear abuse of discretion and the issue was premature. The appeal by state officials was dismissed without prejudice.
• Smith v. Thomas
  687 F.2d 113· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 10×
  A party is not considered a "prevailing party" for the purpose of recovering attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if the relief obtained was merely a temporary restraining order that preserved the status quo and did not address the merits of the claims, especially when the unde
• Bruce Drug, Inc. v. Hollister Inc.
  688 F.2d 853· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-08 ·cited 10×
  The majority opinion erred by applying a standard bordering on de novo review rather than the 'clearly erroneous' standard for preliminary injunctions.
• United States v. Landsberger
  692 F.2d 501· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the "Foreign Tax Haven Double Trust" scheme constituted an illegal anticipatory assignment of income, and affirmed the permanent injunction against it. The contempt order was vacated due to a factual error regarding the timing of one violation.
• Friarton Ests. Corp. v. The City OF NEW York
  681 F.2d 150· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata due to prior state court litigation of the same issues, including constitutional claims.
• Hiland Potato Chip Co. v. Culbro Corp.
  671 F.2d 1190· 8th Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the abandonment issue because the district court had not made a final judgment, and affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's preliminary injunction and the grant of the defendant's preliminary injunction.
• Keidaish v. Smith
  400 So. 2d 90· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-06-03 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court may dismiss an appeal when the appellant has disobeyed a trial court's order.
• Medeco Sec. Locks, Inc. v. Swiderek
  680 F.2d 37· 7th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should not have been granted without an evidentiary hearing when factual disputes were present.
• State OF Ariz. v. Maricopa Cnty. Med. Soc'y
  643 F.2d 553· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the maximum reimbursement schedules in question cannot be branded per se violations of the Sherman Act without more experience and evidence of their effects on competition.
• Beukema's Petroleum Co. v. Admiral Petroleum Co.
  613 F.2d 626· 6th Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction must be entered on a separate document to be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 and 65(c).
• Conservation LAW Found. OF NEW England, Inc. v. Andrus
  617 F.2d 296· 1st Cir.· 1979-11-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and thus injunctive relief pending appeal was not warranted.
• Michael Reese Physicians AND Surgeons v. Quern
  606 F.2d 732· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the state has no choice but to pay a bona fide employer for services rendered by its employees, if the employer desires.
• Md. Undercoating Co., Inc. v. Payne
  603 F.2d 477· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to balance the potential harm to the defendant with the potential harm to the plaintiff when granting a preliminary injunction and by incorrectly concluding that the defendant's new employer was in competition with the plain
• Concerned Citizens OF Bushkill Twp. v. Costle
  592 F.2d 164· 3d Cir.· 1979-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a continuance for the EPA to reconsider its prior approval of a sewer project and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
• Hurley v. Ward
  584 F.2d 609· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting anal and genital searches without probable cause for the specific inmate who brought the action, but did abuse its discretion in granting such relief for all inmat
• Dakota Wholesale Liquor, Inc. v. State OF Minn.
  584 F.2d 847· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Jordan v. Wolke
  593 F.2d 772· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that granting a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring construction of new facilities for contact visitation was an abuse of discretion due to insufficient evidence of necessity and potential costs.
• United States v. Commonwealth OF Va. & Harold W. Burgess
  569 F.2d 1300· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's order granting preliminary relief from the suspension of LEAA funding was an appealable injunction and that the district court failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(a) and 65(d).
• Garza v. Tex. Educ. Found., Inc.
  565 F.2d 909· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
• Consumers Union OF the United States, Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n
  561 F.2d 349· D.C. Cir.· 1977-07-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a prior preliminary injunction in a separate action did not preclude the current FOIA lawsuit because the prior injunction was interlocutory and the case was effectively closed out.
• Small v. Kiley
  567 F.2d 163· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should not have been entered without the district court making required findings regarding likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, and without determining jurisdiction.
• Mulqueeny v. Nat'l Comm'n ON the Observance OF Int'l Women's Year
  549 F.2d 1115· 7th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 10×
  Plaintiffs lack standing to sue because they have not alleged a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is traceable to the Commission's conduct and redressable by judicial relief.
• Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Armstrong
  336 So. 2d 1219· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-08-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a trial court erred in enjoining administrative discharge proceedings and granting declaratory relief before the administrative agency had acted.
• Gillespie & Co. OF NEW York, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
  533 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury.
• McGOVERN v. Amira
  328 So. 2d 862· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-03-12 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
• The Fund FOR Animals v. Frizzell
  530 F.2d 982· D.C. Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and noting the delay in seeking relief.
• Nat'l Ornament & Elec. Light Christmas Ass'n, Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n
  526 F.2d 1368· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Consumer Product Safety Commission's 'Consumer Deputy Program' was a lawful informational initiative, not a rule-making procedure requiring adherence to specific statutory formalities.
• Empire Pontiac Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
  322 So. 2d 927· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-11-21 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
• Anderson v. United States
  520 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to stay proceedings in the district court, which sought to await permission from a bankruptcy court to sue a former trustee, is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the underlying defense is legal in nature.
• Dillon v. BAY City Constr. Co., Inc.
  512 F.2d 801· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that consolidating a merits hearing with a preliminary injunction hearing without sufficient opportunity for discovery and presentation of evidence was an abuse of discretion.
• Junior Chamber OF Commerce OF Kan. City v. The Mo. State Junior Chamber OF Commerce
  508 F.2d 1031· 8th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the federal government's substantial financing of the Jaycees' leadership development programs, which exclude women, creates a sufficient nexus to the discriminatory conduct to potentially violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Conservation Council OF N.C. v. Col. Albert C. Costanzo
  505 F.2d 498· 4th Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 10×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient injury for standing regarding recreational use of private highlands, but remanded for further hearings on potential use of submerged lands.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. City OF Miami
  299 So. 2d 152· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-09-03 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a temporary injunction without adequate basis in the complaint or evidence, and by denying the motion to dissolve it.
• Cason v. City OF Jacksonville
  497 F.2d 949· 5th Cir.· 1974-07-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the City of Jacksonville under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, vacating the injunction and remanding for factual findings on whether the meeting was intended to be private or public.
• Miller v. Bess MacGILL
  297 So. 2d 573· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-06-27 ·cited 10×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the temporary injunction was erroneously granted because the appellees failed to prove facts entitling them to relief, and the landowner had a legal right to use the unzoned property for any lawful purpose.
• The Robinswood Cmty. Club v. Volpe
  506 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that under the CEQ guidelines, an environmental impact statement was not required for the highway project because it was not practicable to halt construction, despite federal actions occurring after NEPA's effective date.
• Puerto Rican Org. FOR Political Action v. Kusper
  490 F.2d 575· 7th Cir.· 1973-12-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction requiring voting assistance in Spanish, as the Voting Rights Act protects the right to an effective vote.
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR the Advancement of Colored People v. Lansing Bd. OF Educ.
  485 F.2d 569· 6th Cir.· 1973-08-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the preliminary injunction to reinstate a desegregation plan.
• Pittsburgh Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union NO. 9 v. Pittsburgh Press Co.
  479 F.2d 607· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctions because the unions failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm.
• Genosick v. Richmond Unified Sch. Dist.
  479 F.2d 482· 9th Cir.· 1973-05-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction and denying the motion to dismiss because the record did not demonstrate a policy or threat to curtail student First Amendment rights.
• The Wash. Free Cmty., Inc. v. Wilson
  484 F.2d 1078· D.C. Cir.· 1973-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief, finding that a revised police directive cured the primary basis for the alleged constitutional violations and that subsequent incidents were insufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of future misconduct.
• Goldie Ann Betts v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF Chicago
  466 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable probability of success on the merits of her due process or state statutory claims.
• The Robert Stigwood Grp. Ltd. v. Lon Hurwitz
  462 F.2d 910· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal from the order denying a preliminary injunction is moot because the performances have concluded and there is no reasonable expectation of repetition, and the appeal from the dismissal of claims against some defendants is not yet appealable.
• Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. City OF Mobile
  457 F.2d 340· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction without a full hearing was improper and ordered the immediate grant of the injunction.
• Kempthorne v. The United Transp. Union & the Intermediate Body of the United Transp. Union
  457 F.2d 551· 7th Cir.· 1972-02-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that union members must exhaust administrative remedies with the Secretary of Labor before challenging union election procedures in federal court.
• Associated Gen. Contractors OF Ill. v. Illinois Conference OF Teamsters
  454 F.2d 1324· 7th Cir.· 1972-01-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction to prevent a strike, as the dispute was a labor dispute covered by the Norris-LaGuardia Act and did not meet the requirements of Boys Markets for injunctive relief.
• Berrigan v. Norton
  451 F.2d 790· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellants failed to make a sufficient showing of infringement of their First Amendment rights because they never officially submitted their sermon for approval or dissemination.