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

• Rapp v. United States
  146 F.2d 548· 9th Cir.· 1944-12-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the appellant was sufficiently advised of the charges and that the district court committed no error in its sentence for criminal contempt.
• Bowles v. Sacher
  146 F.2d 186· 2d Cir.· 1944-12-08 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the court has a duty to review the district court's exercise of discretion regarding injunctions and that the district court erred in its construction of the Emergency Price Control Act.
• Shell Oil Co. v. DYE
  135 F.2d 365· 7th Cir.· 1943-04-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the phrase 'all the coal and other minerals' in a deed includes oil and gas, and that subsequent grantees are estopped from claiming title to oil and gas when their predecessor in title excepted them in a subsequent conveyance.
• Nat'l Popsicle Corp. v. Icyclair, Inc.
  119 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1941-05-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred by adopting a master's report without making its own special findings of fact as required by Rule 52(a).
• Bursiel v. Selma Bursiel
  124 Fla. 187· Fla.· 1936-04-29 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a chancery court decree awarding separate maintenance to a wife, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction because neither spouse was domiciled in Florida at the time the bill was filed. The court found the wife failed to establish bona fide re
• Stewart v. Thursby
  103 Fla. 1201· Fla.· 1931-08-25 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  Isaac A. Stewart sought to enjoin Volusia County officials from disbursing public funds to the Board of Trustees of Volusia County Fair and from issuing bonds allegedly authorized by a special act. The Florida Supreme Court consolidated two interlocutory appeals—one from a tempor
• Gracy v. Fielding
  83 Fla. 386· Fla.· 1922-03-18 ·cited 8×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves an appeal from two interlocutory orders concerning an injunction to restrain a trespass. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no error in denying a motion to strike an interlineation and no abuse of discretion in granting a temporar
• State v. Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida
  312 So. 3d 1054· Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-08-24 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's temporary injunction, finding that the appellees failed to demonstrate irreparable harm on behalf of individuals not present in the lower proceedings. The court's decision was based on the parties' failure to provide further briefing a
• Swain v. Junior
  2016 WL 6090943· S.D. Fla.· 2020-04-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendants' motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal must be denied because they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Cristina Tarantola, M.D. v. William B. Henghold, M.D., P.A.
  233 So. 3d 508· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-12-21 ·cited 7×
  Dr. Tarantola challenges a civil contempt order for allegedly violating a preliminary injunction related to a non-compete agreement. The court granted certiorari and quashed the contempt order, finding that the trial court sanctioned Dr. Tarantola for conduct that did not clearly
• Bautista REO U.S., LLC v. ARR Invs., Inc.
  229 So. 3d 362· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-07-19 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  Bautista REO U.S., LLC appeals a trial court's order granting a temporary injunction that required it to release a $250,000 collateral mortgage. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that ARR Investments failed to establish irreparable harm and that an adequate re
• Williams v. Victim Just., P.C.
  198 So. 3d 822· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-03-09 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  Williams appeals an order freezing settlement funds held in her attorney's trust account to preserve assets for a quantum meruit claim by former counsel. The court reverses, holding that the trial court committed legal error by granting a temporary injunction without sufficient f
• Transunion Risk & Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. Reilly
  181 So. 3d 548· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-12-02 ·cited 7×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  TransUnion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement against former employee James Reilly. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court misapplied the statutory
• Vill. OF N. Palm Beach v. S & H Foster's, Inc.
  80 So. 3d 433· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-02-22 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  Foster's Pub, a leaseholder operating an after-hours bar, challenged the Village of North Palm Beach's enforcement of its liquor sales ordinance (prohibiting alcohol sales between 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.) after the property was voluntarily annexed into the Village. The trial cour
• Frye v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  2 So. 3d 1063· Fla. 3d DCA· 2009-02-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a party is not entitled to injunctive relief if they have not exhausted their legal remedies.
• Johnston v. Tampa Sports Auth. & Henry G. Saavedra
  530 F.3d 1320· 11th Cir.· 2008-06-18 ·cited 7×
  Gordon Johnston, a season ticket holder for Tampa Bay Buccaneers games, challenged the Tampa Sports Authority's pat-down search policy instituted at the NFL's mandate as violating the Fourth Amendment and Florida Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's pr
• H & M Hearing Assocs., LLC v. Nobile
  950 So. 2d 501· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-03-02 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  H & M Hearing Associates appeals the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction against former employee Nobile for violating a covenant not to compete. The court reverses and remands because the trial court failed to address whether Nobile's ongoing financial support and guar
• BP Prods. N. Am., Inc. v. Oakridge at Winegard, Inc.
  469 F. Supp. 2d 1128· M.D. Fla.· 2007-01-03 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the magistrate judge did not err in finding an enforceable settlement agreement existed, as the parties reached a meeting of the minds and counsel had clear authority to settle.
• Hollywood Cmty. Synagogue, Inc. v. City of Hollywood
  430 F. Supp. 2d 1296· S.D. Fla.· 2006-05-10 ·cited 7×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motions to dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed while dismissing others.
• Wolf v. James G. Barrie, P.A.
  858 So. 2d 1083· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-09-26 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  Wolf, a veterinary ophthalmologist, signed a restrictive covenant with his employer Barrie, P.A. in 1992. After Barrie sold its veterinary ophthalmology practice to another entity and exited that business line, Wolf opened his own practice. The court reversed the trial court's in
• Palmer v. Braun
  155 F. Supp. 2d 1327· M.D. Fla.· 2001-07-30 ·cited 7×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of their copyright infringement claim was too tenuous to warrant injunctive relief.
• Deltona Transformer Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  115 F. Supp. 2d 1361· M.D. Fla.· 2000-01-11 ·cited 7×
  Deltran sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Wal-Mart from using the trademark "BATTERY TENDER" on battery chargers, alleging trademark infringement, false designation, dilution, and unfair competition. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that Deltran faile
• Tefel v. Reno
  972 F. Supp. 623· S.D. Fla.· 1997-06-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to consider the class action complaint and granted a temporary restraining order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the injunction would serve the publi
• Williford v. Melbourne Commercial Dev., Inc.
  682 So. 2d 1234· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-11-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improper because it exceeded the scope of relief sought by the movant and granted relief that would typically be awarded only after a final hearing.
• Carillon Importers Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Grp., Inc.
  913 F. Supp. 1559· S.D. Fla.· 1996-01-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendant's vodka packaging infringed upon the plaintiff's trade dress, and granted a preliminary injunction.
• Thomas v. Alloy Fasteners, Inc.
  664 So. 2d 59· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-12-08 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  A temporary injunction may be issued for threatened misappropriation of trade secrets under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, even without proof of actual use, but cannot prohibit customer solicitation absent a non-compete agreement or proof of trade secret use for solicitation.
• U.S. 1 Off. Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc.
  655 So. 2d 209· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-05-24 ·cited 7×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  U.S. 1 Office Corp. appeals from a trial court order granting Falls Home Furnishings, Inc. a temporary injunction preventing U.S. 1 from interfering with Falls' advertising sign on U.S. 1's building. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discreti
• State v. Kountry Kitchen OF KEY Largo, Inc.
  645 So. 2d 1086· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-11-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a loss of business alone is insufficient to establish irreparable harm, a necessary element for a temporary injunction.
• Indus. Waste Servs., Inc. v. Faircloth Sanitation, Inc.
  643 So. 2d 688· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-10-12 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  Florida appellate court reversed a temporary injunction against Industrial Waste Services for failure to specify reasons as required by procedural rule.
• Burger King Corp. v. Majeed
  805 F. Supp. 994· S.D. Fla.· 1992-08-21 ·cited 7×
  Burger King Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to prevent terminated franchisees from continuing to operate restaurants and use Burger King trademarks without authorization. The defendants, former franchisees whose franchises were terminated for nonpayment of royalties a
• Covino v. Patrissi
  967 F.2d 73· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the random visual body-cavity search policy at NWSCF was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and thus not an unreasonable regulation under the Fourth Amendment.
• Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., Inc.
  953 F.2d 500· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction over the case, both through extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act and because the infringing goods passed through a U.S. foreign trade zone, and affirmed the preliminary injunction.
• In re Dep't OF Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litig. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep't OF Energy
  944 F.2d 914· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1991-09-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that DOE's policy rates were a reasonable basis for calculating prejudgment interest, the preliminary injunction order controlled fund allocation overriding the United States Rule, and Chevron could not retroactively alter property designations to minimize liabilit
• de Rodriguez v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela
  576 So. 2d 870· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-03-19 ·cited 7×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that an injunction under the RICO Act cannot be issued against an innocent party, but a lis pendens and prejudgment attachment were properly granted.
• Price v. Int'l Union
  927 F.2d 88· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that appellants' constitutional claims failed due to lack of state action, and the union's post-Beck rebate procedures satisfied its duty of fair representation. The employer was not liable for the union's actions.
• Gerber Garment Tech., Inc. v. Lectra Sys., Inc.
  916 F.2d 683· Fed. Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that claims 15 and 16 of the '154 patent were not consonant with the claims elected in the parent application, thus rendering them invalid for obviousness-type double patenting, and affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Ocean Bio-Chem, Inc. v. Turner Network Television, Inc.
  741 F. Supp. 1546· S.D. Fla.· 1990-07-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act, and thus denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claim.
• Int'l Primate Prot. League v. Administrators OF THE Tulane Educ. Fund
  895 F.2d 1056· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue, and that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had a sufficient interest to remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
• Howe v. Varity Corp. & Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
  896 F.2d 1107· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that welfare benefits do not automatically vest for life upon retirement and that the plan's language did not contractually obligate lifetime benefits. However, benefits for injuries or disabilities occurring before plan termination remain protected.
• Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie's Costume Co., Inc.
  891 F.2d 452· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that Whimsicality's misrepresentation of its costumes as 'soft sculptures' to the Copyright Office invalidated its copyright registrations, thus precluding an infringement action. The court also vacated the denial of attorney's fees to the prevailing defendant.
• Frio Ice v. SunFruit
  724 F. Supp. 1373· S.D. Fla.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) does not grant private parties jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief, and that a prior injunction requiring the establishment of a trust bank account was improper. The court also found that while individuals
• In re Impounded Case (law Firm)
  879 F.2d 1211· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 7×
  The crime-fraud exception applies to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine even when the alleged criminality is solely that of the law firm, but the district court's application of the exception was too broad.
• Toribio Garcia v. Bauza-Salas
  862 F.2d 905· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-06 ·cited 7×
  A federal court cannot issue an injunction that stays or nullifies the effect of a state court proceeding or judgment, as this violates the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Miss World (UK) Ltd. v. MRS. Am. Pageants, Inc.
  856 F.2d 1445· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 7×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits for service mark infringement and unfair competition, and thus affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Nelson
  694 F. Supp. 864· S.D. Fla.· 1988-08-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the case challenging the implementation of the SAW program, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• W. Allis Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bowen
  852 F.2d 251· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the Medicare anti-fraud statute and that the district court erred in failing to recognize statutory authority to enjoin antitrust violations. The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief for t
• Cap. Tool & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Maschinenfabrik Herkules
  837 F.2d 171· 4th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Hudson River Sloop Clear-Water, Inc. v. Dep't OF the Navy
  836 F.2d 760· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 7×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the Navy's homeport operational aspects and housing plans were not 'connected actions' under NEPA, thus not requiring a single environmental impact statement.
• Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Garrett J. Barry
  825 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding that the injunction was properly issued to protect the plaintiff's remedy and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• Barnes v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  824 F.2d 300· 4th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court improperly applied the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) in denying interim injunctive relief and that the franchisee is entitled to a preliminary injunction.