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

• DeSIMONE v. Linford
  494 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot because the underlying administrative appeal has concluded.
• The Wickes Corp. v. Indus. Fin. Corp.
  493 F.2d 1173· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the parties' express exclusion of the Florida Arbitration Code rendered it inapplicable, and under Florida common law, agreements to arbitrate future disputes are unenforceable, thus the district court should have stayed arbitration.
• Nieves v. Oswald
  498 F.2d 802· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-30 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court should not declare the case moot based on the state's voluntary cessation of challenged conduct.
• The Nat'l Nutritional Foods Ass'n & Solgar Co., Inc. v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  491 F.2d 845· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against FDA regulations concerning Vitamins A and D.
• Michael and Cynthia Pride v. The Cmty. Sch. Bd. OF Brooklyn
  488 F.2d 321· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-21 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court properly denied a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the balance of hardships tipped in their favor regarding the school board's reassignment plan.
• The Guardians Ass'n OF the NEW York City Police Dep't, Inc. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n OF the City OF NEW York
  490 F.2d 400· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-21 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against appointments from existing lists, finding the lists would soon be exhausted and all on them assured of speedy appointment. However, it instructed the district court to allow plaintiffs to review and comment on prop
• Citizens FOR A Better Env't, Inc. v. Nassau Cnty.
  488 F.2d 1353· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or irreparable harm, given the unresolved state law questions regarding the plaintiff orga
• Consumers OIL Corp. OF Trenton v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  488 F.2d 816· 3d Cir.· 1973-11-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from deciding a case involving interpretation of a state franchise act when substantial constitutional questions are raised and a state court interpretation might avoid those questions.
• LA Chemise Lacoste v. Gen. Mills, Inc.
  487 F.2d 312· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the added corporations were not subject to compulsory joinder and that the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Radio Hill Mines Co., Ltd.
  479 F.2d 4· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had the equitable power to order ancillary reporting requirements as part of a preliminary injunction under the Securities Acts, and that such requirements were not unconstitutional under the Fourth or Fifth Amendments in this context.
• Ungar v. Mandell
  471 F.2d 1163· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 8×
  The denial of injunctive relief was affirmed, but the dismissal of the suit was reversed and remanded for further findings on collateral estoppel.
• Super Tire Eng'g Co. v. McCORKLE
  469 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1972-11-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the case was not moot because the collective bargaining relationship is a continuing one, and the availability of state welfare benefits to strikers could still affect that relationship.
• Boston Prof'l Hockey Ass'n, Inc. v. Gerry Cheevers
  472 F.2d 127· 1st Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 8×
  The court remanded the case for further consideration of specific contract and arbitration issues, finding that new arguments were presented on appeal not addressed by the district court.
• Mason Wong v. Hayakawa
  464 F.2d 1282· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the disciplinary committee acted without substantial evidence.
• Nuclear-Chicago Corp. & Hal O. Anger v. Nuclear Data, Inc.
  465 F.2d 428· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-10 ·cited 8×
  A finite market or the mere possibility of third-party competition does not, by itself, establish irreparable harm sufficient for a preliminary injunction when the defendant is solvent and capable of responding in money damages.
• Yablonski v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  459 F.2d 1201· D.C. Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the death of the plaintiff and the completion of the union election did not render moot the claims for actual and punitive damages, nor the right of the plaintiff's heirs to continue the suit for those damages.
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  457 F.2d 381· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to continue operating the New York-Chatham passenger trains.
• Harlem River Consumers Coop., Inc. v. Associated Grocers OF Harlem, Inc.
  450 F.2d 271· 2d Cir.· 1971-10-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against union officials and their associated businesses for violating the Sherman Act, and that the Norris-LaGuardia Act's "clear proof" requirement was met.
• United States v. City OF NEW Haven
  447 F.2d 972· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against state court orders regulating aircraft flight and closing a runway, due to federal supremacy in navigable airspace.
• Pickell v. Commander W. C. Reed
  446 F.2d 898· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-21 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Cerruti, Inc. v. McCRORY Corp.
  438 F.2d 281· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff had not met its burden of showing probability of success or irreparable injury, especially after the defendant's store closed.
• Pvt. E2 Donald Jack Anderson v. Laird
  437 F.2d 912· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while precedent generally refuses intervention in punitive activations of civilian-soldiers for hair length, the majority's reasoning regarding First and Ninth Amendment rights is flawed.
• Mixing Equip. Co., Inc. v. Philadelphia Gear, Inc.
  436 F.2d 1308· 3d Cir.· 1971-01-11 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would terminate the preliminary injunction and remand for a hearing on damages.
• Petuskey v. Rampton
  431 F.2d 378· 10th Cir.· 1970-09-02 ·cited 8×·via Mandatory Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that a single judge cannot nullify the action of a three-judge court, and that the district court lost jurisdiction upon appeal, rendering subsequent actions void. The court affirmed the three-judge court's order and reversed the single judge's injunctions.
• Mass. Ave. Heights Citizens Ass'n v. Embassy Corp.
  433 F.2d 513· D.C. Cir.· 1970-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the appellant's motion for immediate injunctive relief and summary reversal of the order denying a preliminary injunction.
• Brooks v. Nacrelli
  415 F.2d 272· 3d Cir.· 1969-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as resisting a preliminary injunction motion does not automatically entitle a defendant to summary judgment without further opportunity for evidence.
• Ne. Airlines, Inc. v. Nationwide Charters & Conventions, Inc.
  413 F.2d 335· 1st Cir.· 1969-06-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Northeast Airlines had standing as a party in interest to complain of World Airways' Hawaii charter operations due to price competition, but erred in ordering the release of the security deposit posted for the injunction.
• Udall v. D. C. Transit Sys., Inc.
  404 F.2d 1358· D.C. Cir.· 1968-07-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the showing of likely success and irreparable harm was insufficient, and the public interest was not adequately considered.
• Brake v. Elton J. Gissendanner
  206 So. 2d 10· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-01-16 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  A candidate for Florida House of Representatives who placed third in a special primary election sought a temporary injunction to prevent destruction of voting machine data and to compel a recount. The trial court denied the injunction and dismissed the complaint, and the appellat
• Gallagher v. Automated Bldg. Components, Inc.
  193 So. 2d 445· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-12-13 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction that restrained the defendant from engaging in a competing business for two years after August 1965. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, finding that the employment contract lacked a definite term, di
• Tower Credit Corp. v. State
  187 So. 2d 923· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-06-16 ·cited 8×·via Injunction Pendente Lite
  The Florida Securities Commission sought to enjoin and appoint a receiver over multiple loan companies and individuals for fraudulent securities practices. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order and vacate the
• United States v. FOX
  334 F.2d 449· 5th Cir.· 1964-07-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court should determine the application of the 'freezing principle' on final hearing, not on a preliminary injunction application, and found no basis to put the district court in error for its refusal.
• The Prof'l Golfers Ass'n OF Am. v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.
  166 So. 2d 488· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-07-17 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Professional Golfers Association appeals from a mandatory injunction requiring it to continue occupying and operating a golf course and clubhouse pending completion of a purchase agreement with Bankers Life and Casualty Company. The appellate court reversed the injunction, fi
• Schering Corp. v. SUN RAY Drug Co.
  320 F.2d 72· 3d Cir.· 1963-07-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the value of the plaintiff's goodwill, not just actual damages, can establish the jurisdictional amount in a diversity case, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction under the Pennsylvania Fair Trade Act.
• Formulabs v. Hartley PEN Co.
  318 F.2d 485· 9th Cir.· 1963-05-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that intervenors, as owners of trade secrets, have a right to intervene in an action where those secrets are subject to court control and risk of disclosure, and that such intervention is ancillary and does not require an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Jamelle Rackley v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Orangeburg Reg'l Hosp.
  310 F.2d 141· 4th Cir.· 1962-11-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, but the striking of certain paragraphs from the complaint was improper and those allegations should be considered at a full hearing.
• Elgin v. Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen
  302 F.2d 545· 7th Cir.· 1962-05-03 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Cap. Gains Research Bureau, Inc.
  300 F.2d 745· 2d Cir.· 1961-12-18 ·cited 8×
  The court should have granted a preliminary injunction against an investment adviser who profited by secretly trading in stocks they recommended to clients.
• Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Bush
  268 F.2d 78· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal courts are not required to abstain from ruling on the constitutionality of state actions when a state statute cannot legitimize illegal conduct, even if the statute has not been interpreted by state courts.
• Greater Del. Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd.
  262 F.2d 371· 3d Cir.· 1958-12-30 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  A district court cannot interfere with an administrative agency's authorized ex parte action to appoint a Supervisory Representative in Charge of a savings and loan association during an emergency.
• Stirling Music Co., Inc. v. Feilbach
  100 So. 2d 75· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-01-30 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves an appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the injunction.
• Frieda Rader and Paul Rader v. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co. OF Philadelphia
  242 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1957-03-05 ·cited 8×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The appellate court held that the District Court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, not on res judicata grounds, because indispensable parties destroyed diversity jurisdiction.
• Vaughn C. Payne, Sr. v. Gus F. Koehler
  225 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1955-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for rehearing is not an appeal from a final decision and thus the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
• City of Des Moines v. Cont'l Ill. Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Chicago
  205 F.2d 729· 8th Cir.· 1953-07-02 ·cited 8×
  A federal court's preliminary injunction preventing a city from forfeiting a railway franchise is affirmed, as the court's custody of the property precludes such action pending litigation.
• Sawyer v. United States Steel Co.
  197 F.2d 582· D.C. Cir.· 1952-05-02 ·cited 8×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the preliminary injunctions must be stayed pending further review to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable injury.
• Chicago v. Chicago Great W. R. Co.
  190 F.2d 361· 8th Cir.· 1951-08-06 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court should have modified its order denying a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant railroad from further dismantling the bridge and railway line, as the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial interest and potential irreparable harm.
• Humble OIL & Ref. Co. v. Sun Oil Co.
  175 F.2d 670· 5th Cir.· 1949-06-25 ·cited 8×
  An injunction is an improper substitute for discovery procedures under Rule 34 and Rule 37, as those rules provide adequate remedies for non-compliance.
• Steinberg v. Am. Bantam Car Co.
  173 F.2d 179· 3d Cir.· 1949-02-23 ·cited 8×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the stockholders' meeting has been held, rendering the issues regarding the injunction and dismissal non-justiciable.
• Fed. Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Broad. Co., Inc.
  167 F.2d 349· 2d Cir.· 1948-04-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and thus the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Morton Salt Co. v. City of S. Hutchinson
  159 F.2d 897· 10th Cir.· 1947-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enter a temporary injunction, as the plaintiff's property is subject to taxation for a public improvement even without direct benefit.