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

• Cintron-Garcia v. Romero-Barcelo
  671 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits and the balance of harms did not favor injunctive relief.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Mount Vernon Mem'l Park
  664 F.2d 1358· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Mount Vernon is an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as its debentures fit the definition of face-amount certificates of the installment type, and a reinvestment requirement is not necessary for regulation.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Anchor Hocking Corp.
  666 F.2d 1037· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-16 ·cited 8×
• Lynch Corp. v. Omaha Nat'l Bank
  666 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to prevent the bank from disbursing funds from an escrow account, as the buyer faced irreparable harm due to potential multiplicity of suits.
• United States Postal Serv. v. Athena Prods., Ltd.
  654 F.2d 362· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 8×
  The statutory scheme authorizing the Postal Service to detain mail based on probable cause of false representations in commercial advertising does not violate the First Amendment or due process, provided injunctions are limited to the duration necessary for prompt administrative
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Energy & James B. Edwards
  659 F.2d 150· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that Mobil failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a necessary element for a preliminary injunction, and thus the injunction was improperly granted.
• LOS Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  650 F.2d 1004· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a temporary restraining order, as the plaintiffs raised serious questions on the merits and the balance of hardships tipped in their favor, and the Board's March 16 Order itself constituted de jure discrimination.
• Layne-Western Co., Inc. v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO
  650 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the interpretation of which contributions are due under the collective bargaining agreement is an arbitrable issue, but the determination of delinquency based on those contributions is for the trustees. The court also held that the issuance of a preliminary in
• Roberts v. Austin
  632 F.2d 1202· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that Congress and the Department of Agriculture have precluded the type of verification procedure sought by the appellees.
• VAN Arsdel v. Tex. A&M Univ.
  628 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the professor's resignation was voluntary and not under duress, and the injunction lacked a finding of irreparable injury.
• The Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Brock Adams
  629 F.2d 587· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellees complied with Executive Order 11,990, NEPA, and section 608 of the Military Construction Act, and that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction.
• State OF NEW Mexico ex rel. NEW Mexico State Hwy. Dep't v. Goldschmidt
  629 F.2d 665· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The enactment of the Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Act, 1980, mooted the controversy regarding the allocation of federal-aid highway funds, as it established a new ceiling and allocation formula for funds not obligated by July 8, 1980.
• Bldg. Officials & Code ADM. v. Code Tech., Inc.
  628 F.2d 730· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient probability of success on the merits to justify a preliminary injunction, vacating the injunction.
• Sadegh Shamloo v. Miss. State Bd. OF Trs. OF Insts. OF Higher Learning
  620 F.2d 516· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  University regulations that restrict student demonstrations to 'activities of a wholesome nature' are unconstitutionally vague and an impermissible content-based restriction on speech, violating the First Amendment.
• Sanford v. O'Neill
  616 F.2d 92· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because material factual disputes existed and the plaintiffs had demanded a jury trial for their constitutional claims.
• Valdez v. Applegate
  616 F.2d 570· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Star Distribs., Ltd. v. Marino
  613 F.2d 4· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 8×
  State legislators are immune from suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief based on their legislative activities, including issuing subpoenas.
• Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred AND Forty-Four Welfare Recipients v. King
  610 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-06 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because the appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their claims about the segregation of welfare fraud investigations and the right to counsel.
• Emerson Elec. Co. v. The Black & Decker Mfg. Co.
  606 F.2d 234· 8th Cir.· 1979-09-18 ·cited 8×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the transfer order was appealable, there was no personal jurisdiction over Limited, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case.
• Palmigiano v. Garrahy
  599 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the issue of the district court's order was not ripe for decision, as it lacked sanctions and was merely a directive for findings and recommendations.
• Atkins v. Scott
  597 F.2d 872· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs, and the case should be tried and decided without further delay.
• Citizens Energy Coal. OF Ind. v. Sendak
  594 F.2d 1158· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-28 ·cited 8×
• Hunt v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
  591 F.2d 1234· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 8×
  Parties must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of the Commission's authority to bring an administrative action, even if a similar court enforcement action was previously brought.
• Farshy v. Kagan
  585 F.2d 749· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-07 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits and any harm could be remedied by back pay.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Beatrice Foods Co. & Tropicana Prods., Inc.
  587 F.2d 1225· D.C. Cir.· 1978-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the Federal Trade Commission's suggestion for rehearing en banc, finding the matter moot due to the merger's consummation and the lack of timely opportunity for meaningful review.
• Bastian v. Lakefront Realty Corp.
  581 F.2d 685· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Lakefront's stock was not required to be registered under Section 12(g)(1) because it was entitled to deregistration under Section 12(g)(4), thus Section 14(a) proxy rules did not apply. The denial of a preliminary injunction was also affirmed.
• Dendy v. The Wash. Hosp. Ctr.
  581 F.2d 990· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was not adequately explained, requiring remand for reconsideration and clarification.
• A-Copy, Inc. v. Michaelson
  599 F.2d 450· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 8×
  A preliminary injunction enforcing a one-year non-compete clause is improper if issued after the one-year period has expired, even if the delay was caused by court proceedings.
• United States v. City OF Philadelphia
  573 F.2d 802· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining the hiring of an all-male police class and in ordering transfers of female officers, but erred in denying reinstatement to an officer terminated due to pregnancy.
• Mayor & City Council OF Baltimore v. Mathews
  571 F.2d 1273· 4th Cir.· 1978-02-16 ·cited 8×
  The court should not decide the case by an equally divided court but should grant rehearing.
• Duckett v. Eve Silberman
  568 F.2d 1020· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous in determining that the seller refused to sell for reasons unrelated to race and that the buyers were unwilling to purchase on the seller's specified terms.
• The Vill. OF N. Palm Beach v. The Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty.
  349 So. 2d 683· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-08-12 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Village of North Palm Beach appealed the denial of a temporary injunction to stop the School Board from constructing a library building on school property that allegedly violated the village's zoning setback requirements. The court reversed and adopted the balancing-of-public
• Sockwell v. Maloney
  554 F.2d 1236· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction requiring notice and a hearing before reducing or terminating foster care benefits was warranted.
• Laurel B. Berg v. LaCROSSE Cooler Co.
  548 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-21 ·cited 8×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the plaintiff has become eligible to obtain a right-to-sue notice, rendering the controversy over the preliminary injunction's availability moot.
• Munson v. Gilliam
  543 F.2d 48· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-20 ·cited 8×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and federal intervention in state criminal proceedings was unwarran
• Munters Corp. v. Burgess Indus. Inc.
  535 F.2d 210· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the lower court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the balance of equities did not decidedly favor the party seeking the injunction.
• Town OF Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Cnty.
  332 So. 2d 355· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-05-14 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Town of Palm Beach appealed an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction that restrained it from abandoning four beach access roads. The Florida appellate court reversed the temporary injunction, holding that the trial court's finding of irreparable injury was based
• Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Deffenbaugh
  534 F.2d 126· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the temporary restraining order because the appellant's failure to file registration statements constituted a material breach of the contract.
• Local 13, Int'l Fed'n OF Prof'l & Tech. Eng'rs, AFL-CIO v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  531 F.2d 1178· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the collective bargaining agreement explicitly excluded disputes over the assignment of work from arbitration, notwithstanding other provisions that might be implicated.
• Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Coop. Corp.
  528 F.2d 949· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), specifically 42 U.S.C. § 4332, authorizes federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings when necessary to effectuate federal environmental policy, and thus 28 U.S.C. § 2283 does not bar such injunctions.
• Inmates OF SAN Diego Cnty. Jail IN Cell Block 3B & Jason Elliot Roman HI v. Duffy
  528 F.2d 954· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of class certification and preliminary injunctive relief for pretrial detainees is appealable and that the district court erred in applying precedent for convicted prisoners and in denying severance.
• United States Labor Party v. Codd
  527 F.2d 118· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-09 ·cited 8×
  A five-dollar fee for a daily permit to use sound amplification devices is constitutional if it is a reasonable regulatory measure to cover administrative costs and there is no proof of indigence preventing payment.
• La. Env't Soc'y, Inc. v. Coleman
  524 F.2d 930· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial threat of irreparable injury.
• Foremost Int'l Tours, Inc. v. Qantas Airways Ltd.
  525 F.2d 281· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-22 ·cited 8×
  A district court may issue a preliminary injunction in an antitrust case involving an inter-industry problem, even if a regulatory agency has jurisdiction over one of the parties, provided the court retains jurisdiction and defers to the agency for intra-industry aspects.
• Friends OF THE Earth, Inc. v. Brinegar
  518 F.2d 322· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a $4,500,000 bond was unreasonable for a non-profit environmental organization seeking an injunction pending appeal in a NEPA case, reducing it to $1,000.
• Soc'y FOR Animal Rights, Inc. v. Schlesinger
  512 F.2d 915· D.C. Cir.· 1975-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it could not conclude the district judge abused his discretion in denying an injunction pending appeal, given the narrow scope of review and the scanty record.
• Rabinowitz v. Bd. OF Junior Coll. Dist. NO. 508
  507 F.2d 1255· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the voluntary cessation of the complained-of action does not moot the litigation unless there is assurance the wrong will not be repeated.
• Burns v. Paddock
  503 F.2d 18· 7th Cir.· 1974-09-05 ·cited 8×
• Larry P. v. Riles
  502 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's order granting a partial preliminary injunction, finding it was within the trial court's discretion.
• Mass. AIR Pollution & Noise Abatement Comm. v. Brinegar
  499 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of a temporary restraining order because compelling circumstances were not present. The court noted the case was not ripe for interlocutory review due to lack of full evidence and unclear nexus between flig