Preliminary Injunction

3,388 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,537 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency & William D. Ruckelshaus
  465 F.2d 528· D.C. Cir.· 1972-05-05 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the EPA's failure to adequately explain its decision not to suspend the registration of aldrin and dieldrin, particularly regarding the balancing of benefits against potential harm and the incorporation of carcinogenicity data, required a remand.
• Wright v. Rushen
  642 F.2d 1129· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 64×
  A preliminary injunction mandating extensive prison reforms must be set aside if the district court fails to apply the proper legal standards for assessing the plaintiffs' probability of success on the merits.
• Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp.
  328 So. 2d 825· Fla.· 1975-07-17 ·cited 64×·via Temporary Injunction
  A trial court violates an appellate mandate by dissolving a temporary injunction and authorizing a stock sale when the mandate directs the court to first determine the rights of parties under an option contract. The trial court must apply established Florida law to determine the
• Pac. Coast Meat Jobbers Ass'n, Inc. v. The Cost OF Living Council
  481 F.2d 1388· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1973-08-18 ·cited 64×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and that the C.L.C.'s actions had a rational basis and were within its statutory authority.
• Viser v. Willard
  60 Fla. 395· Fla.· 1910-06-01 ·cited 64×·via Temporary Injunction
  A property owner sought equitable relief, including injunction and damages, for flooding caused by defendants' drainage ditches on adjacent land. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the bill of complaint, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the
• Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.
  753 F.2d 208· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court erred by granting a preliminary injunction based solely on mark similarity and priority of use, without fully analyzing the mark's protectability and likelihood of confusion factors.
• Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc.
  739 F.2d 1415· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-07 ·cited 63×
  The court held that Phoenix's motion for reconsideration tolled the time for appeal, allowing review of the preliminary injunction, which was affirmed. The appeal from the denial of summary judgment was dismissed.
• Atari, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp.
  672 F.2d 607· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-02 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the defendant's K. C. Munchkin appropriated protectable expression from the plaintiff's PAC-MAN audiovisual work, specifically its characters, warranting reversal of the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Penn v. SAN Juan Hosp., Inc.
  528 F.2d 1181· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the permanent injunction claim without proper notice and consolidation, and in denying class action status based on unpersuasive reasoning.
• Boire v. The Miami Herald Publ'g Co.
  343 F.2d 17· 5th Cir.· 1965-03-11 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court improperly exercised its equity powers by enjoining the representation election proceedings, as the alleged statutory violation was not sufficiently manifest to overcome the strong congressional policy against interfering with such matters.
• Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Khimani
  892 F.2d 1512· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-29 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the defendants in civil contempt for violating the preliminary injunction by using the name "H.J. Inns" and in imposing sanctions.
• Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dep't
  679 F.2d 541· 6th Cir.· 1982-05-07 ·cited 62×
  The court held that a district court should be cautious in modifying a consent decree, especially if it would cause parties to assume obligations for which they have not contracted, and that a consent decree cannot alter the rights of a non-party union concerning layoffs by senio
• United States v. State OF Or.
  657 F.2d 1009· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-10 ·cited 62×
  Indian tribes may consent to suit without explicit Congressional authority, and the Yakima Tribe's intervention and agreement to submit disputes to federal court constituted such consent, waiving their sovereign immunity.
• Rennie v. Klein
  653 F.2d 836· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the 'substantial departure from accepted professional judgment' standard governs a patient's constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication.
• Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc.
  384 So. 2d 734· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-06-11 ·cited 62×·via Temporary Injunction
  Contemporary Interiors appealed a trial court's grant of a temporary injunction that prohibited it from selling flooring in a shopping center. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements for obtaining this extrao
• FOX Valley Harvestore, Inc. v. A. O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc.
  545 F.2d 1096· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-07 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an inadequate remedy at law.
• Chappell & Co., Inc. v. Frankel
  367 F.2d 197· 2d Cir.· 1966-10-13 ·cited 62×
  An order denying a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Love v. United States
  871 F.2d 1488· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-06 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the Loves' claims for conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are cognizable under the FTCA, and their claim against individual officials for denial of due process is a valid Bivens claim.
• Oxford Int'l Bank & Tr., Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch
  374 So. 2d 54· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-07-17 ·cited 61×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a contingent and disputed claim for money damages is insufficient to establish the clear legal right required for injunctive relief.
• Stormy Clime Ltd. v. Progroup, Inc.
  809 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-23 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the district court incompletely applied the legal standard for the functionality defense in a trade dress infringement case, warranting vacatur of the preliminary injunction.
• Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. R.D. Beard
  730 F.2d 384· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while the district court may have erred in its analysis of copyright infringement and misappropriation claims, the denial of the preliminary injunction is affirmed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the threatened injury to them outweighed the p
• Monahan v. State OF Neb.
  645 F.2d 592· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted for Rose due to potential conflict between state and federal law, the ordered second hearing was vacated due to changed circumstances, and Monahan was not entitled to preliminary relief as he failed to show irrepara
• Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. The Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel
  640 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction but modified it to expire within 90 days, finding that while the district court likely did not err in granting the injunction, the record deficiencies and potential overbreadth warranted modification.
• Angus Brown v. Neeb
  644 F.2d 551· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-03 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction prohibiting layoffs that would reduce the proportion of minority firefighters, based on the district court's authority to modify the consent decree due to changed circumstances.
• DOE v. Bailey Marshall
  622 F.2d 118· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 60×
  A case is moot if the student has graduated and the suit sought only injunctive relief, even if attorneys' fees are requested. However, the mootness does not preclude a determination of attorneys' fees if the plaintiff is a prevailing party.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. Sombrotto
  449 F.2d 915· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court held that reversing a denial of preliminary injunctive relief in a labor dispute, especially after a supervening event like a national agreement, is an extraordinary and potentially inappropriate action for an appellate court.
• Build OF Buffalo, Inc. v. Sedita
  441 F.2d 284· 2d Cir.· 1971-04-13 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the dismissal of the Mayor and Police Commissioner was an interlocutory order refusing an injunction, thus reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Ideal TOY Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd. (Inc.) & David Faber
  360 F.2d 1021· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-23 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement, finding no abuse of discretion by the lower court.
• In re CNX GAS Corp. S'holders Litig. Consol. C.A. No. 5377-VCL
  Del. Ch.· 2010-07-05 ·cited 59×
  The Court grants the defendants' application for interlocutory appeal of the Injunction Decision. The Court finds that the defendants have standing to appeal because the decision's analysis of the standard of review constitutes a collateral adverse ruling that will govern the cas
• Am. Civil Liberties Union OF Ill. v. City OF ST. Charles & Fred T.L. Norris
  794 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the prominent display of a Latin cross on a public building during Christmas, even if part of a larger display, likely violates the Establishment Clause because it signifies governmental support for Christianity and is not a traditional Christmas symbol.
• Moody v. Amoco OIL Co.
  734 F.2d 1200· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 59×
• Usaco Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc.
  689 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 59×
  The court held that a district court has the power to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve assets for potential restitution based on a breach of fiduciary duty, even if the defendants argue state law remedies are adequate.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Buha
  623 F.2d 455· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 59×
  Benefits under an ERISA-covered pension plan are not subject to garnishment by a creditor of a plan beneficiary, and federal courts may enjoin such garnishments under ERISA's express authorization exception to the anti-injunction act.
• Town Court Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Beal
  586 F.2d 266· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the nursing home's due process claim regarding termination of its Medicare provider agreement, even without full exhaustion of administrative remedies, due to the colorable nature of the constitutional claim.
• Sys. Operations, Inc. v. Sci. Games Dev. Corp.
  555 F.2d 1131· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-03 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court erred in placing the burden of proving falsity on the defendant and in failing to require a security bond, thus reversing the preliminary injunction.
• Urbain v. Knapp Bros. Mfg. Co.
  217 F.2d 810· 6th Cir.· 1954-12-01 ·cited 59×
  The court should not have granted a preliminary injunction without sufficient evidence to establish material facts and without requiring security from the appellee.
• State v. Sullivan
  157 Fla. 496· Fla.· 1946-05-28 ·cited 59×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court vacated a contempt conviction against attorney Vincent C. Giblin for filing an affidavit containing accusations against a circuit judge. The Court held that while certain statements in the affidavit may have been contemptuous, due process required that G
• Ferrero v. Associated Materials Inc.
  923 F.2d 1441· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the new Georgia statute permitting reformation of covenants not to compete applies retroactively and that the preliminary injunction was properly granted under federal procedural standards.
• Lynch v. Dukakis
  719 F.2d 504· 1st Cir.· 1983-10-12 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, holding that Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is enforceable through a Section 1983 action and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the relief granted.
• Belo Broad. Corp. v. Clark
  654 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-28 ·cited 58×
  The court held that neither the First Amendment nor the common law grants the press a right to copy and broadcast audiotapes admitted as exhibits in a criminal trial when doing so could prejudice a pending trial.
• Lundgrin v. Claytor
  619 F.2d 61· 10th Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his breach of contract claim regarding his enlistment agreement.
• United States Postal Serv. v. Brennan
  579 F.2d 188· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 58×
  The dissenting judge holds that the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) should have been permitted to intervene as of right in the litigation. The judge would reverse the judgment denying intervention.
• Helene Curtis Indus., Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
  560 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-17 ·cited 58×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits for trademark infringement and unfair competition due to consumer confusion, and that the defendant's antitrust claims did not preclude the injunction.
• Bullock v. United States
  265 F.2d 683· 6th Cir.· 1959-02-27 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the appellants were properly convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court order mandating school desegregation, and that various procedural and evidentiary challenges raised on appeal lacked merit.
• Reebok Int'l v. Marnatech Enters., Inc.
  970 F.2d 552· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 57×
  The court held that in Lanham Act cases, a district court can in some instances issue a freeze of some assets for some period of time.
• Church OF Scientology Flag Serv. ORG., Inc. v. City OF Clearwater
  777 F.2d 598· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-13 ·cited 57×
  The court vacated injunctions against a repealed ordinance due to mootness, dismissed appeals of interlocutory orders regarding a successor ordinance as improvidently granted, and affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
• United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  456 F.2d 483· 3d Cir.· 1972-02-03 ·cited 57×
  The court held that recovery of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred due to an improvidently issued injunction is limited to the amount of the injunction bond when pursued in the same proceeding.
• Inmates OF the Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller
  453 F.2d 12· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-01 ·cited 57×
  A federal court should not order a hearing on providing counsel for all prisoners prior to interrogation, as Miranda warnings only affect the admissibility of statements, not the investigation process itself.
• Stell v. Savannah-Chatham Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  333 F.2d 55· 5th Cir.· 1964-06-18 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction in the Savannah case and in relegating the Glynn County board to state administrative remedies. It also affirmed that racial classification based on aptitude differences violates the Equal Protection
• Democratic Executive Comm. OF Fla. v. Laurel M. LEE
  915 F.3d 1312· 11th Cir.· 2019-02-15 ·cited 56×
  Florida's signature-matching scheme for vote-by-mail and provisional ballots, which rejected ballots when officials determined signatures did not match, was found to impose an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because some voter