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

• Ebel v. City OF Corona
  767 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the City of Corona's adult-use zoning ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to Helen Ebel's bookstore because it did not provide adequate alternative locations and the amortization period was unreasonable given her investment and lease.
• Prohosky v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  767 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-22 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a permanent injunction against spraying water through endguns, as there was no evidence that this action caused harm to the plaintiffs under Indiana law.
• Rollins Protective Servs. Co., Inc. v. Jeanine Lyn Lammons and Daniel L. Sloan
  472 So. 2d 812· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-07-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a trial court cannot refuse to enforce a reasonable non-competition clause in an employment contract based on a finding that enforcement would be unduly harsh or oppressive.
• Sardi's Rest. Corp. v. Sardie
  755 F.2d 717· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a realistic possibility of irreparable injury or a sharp balance of hardships in its favor.
• Captain Dale M. Hartikka v. United States
  754 F.2d 1516· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court should be affirmed because the plaintiff has shown genuinely extraordinary irreparable injury due to the stigma of a general discharge, distinguishing it from ordinary employment termination cases.
• Liptak v. The United States
  748 F.2d 1254· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly referring the case to a special master without exceptional circumstances or consent, and that a transcript was necessary to review credibility findings.
• United States v. Ward V. Nolder
  749 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Nolder's motion to vacate the judgment, as Nolder was a member of the Coleman class protected by an injunction.
• Gaylord Broad. Co. v. Cosmos Broad. Corp.
  746 F.2d 251· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a claim for injunctive relief to enforce a one-year non-compete clause is moot once the one-year period has expired, leaving only a claim for damages.
• Keishian v. Buckley
  752 F.2d 1513· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in preliminarily enjoining the appellant from challenging in state court the appellee's levy upon the appellant's automobile.
• Virzi Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru OF NEW England, Inc.
  742 F.2d 677· 1st Cir.· 1984-08-30 ·cited 6×
  A franchisee is considered 'successful' for attorney's fees under the Connecticut franchise statute if their lawsuit provides a practical benefit, such as obtaining injunctive relief to continue operations, even if the substantive claims are later dismissed as moot.
• Tyler v. Black
  744 F.2d 610· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or rely on an erroneous legal premise in denying the inmates' motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
• The Sansom Comm. v. Lynn
  735 F.2d 1552· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 6×
• Sadowsky v. City OF NEW York
  732 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims regarding the recordation requirement of the SRO renovation law.
• FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Indus. Co., Ltd.
  730 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-06 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to protect FMC's trade secrets, finding FMC demonstrated irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits.
• Gulf Coast Indus. Workers' Union v. Exxon Co.
  712 F.2d 161· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 6×
  A federal court may not issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration of a labor dispute unless the arbitration process itself would be rendered a hollow formality by the challenged self-help measure.
• Williams v. Pierce
  708 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that HUD's failure to provide the required public comment period before issuing its rent increase regulations violated its own rules, which have the force of law.
• Burnstein v. 5838 Condo., Inc.
  430 So. 2d 572· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-05-03 ·cited 6×
  A condominium association that obtained a preliminary injunction for noise abatement was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees because the preliminary injunction was interlocutory and the case remained pending on the merits.
• Midshipman First Class Robert O. Wimmer v. The Honorable John F. Lehman, Jr.
  705 F.2d 1402· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Naval Academy's procedures did not violate due process and that the Secretary had statutory authority to order the midshipman to active duty. The court reversed the preliminary injunction.
• Universal City Studios, Inc. v. N.Y. Broadway Int'l Corp.
  705 F.2d 94· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that criminal contempt punishments were improperly imposed because the proceedings were initiated and conducted as civil contempt proceedings without proper notice.
• Craig v. McDONOUGH
  704 F.2d 780· 1st Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the legal issues were inextricably intertwined with unresolved factual disputes, making it impossible to assess the likelihood of success on the merits at this prelimin
• Ponke v. A.A. Boca, Inc.
  429 So. 2d 415· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-03-30 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  Two appellants challenged contempt orders for violating a temporary injunction in a non-competition dispute involving a taxi business. The court reversed the contempt finding as to Ponke due to lack of jurisdiction and service of process, but affirmed the contempt finding as to P
• Baker v. Bray
  701 F.2d 119· 10th Cir.· 1983-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appeal concerning the dismissal of third-party claims was unappealable due to failure to meet Rule 54(b) requirements and lack of finality, and the appeal concerning the preliminary injunction was moot.
• United States Aluminum Corp. v. Kawneer Co., Inc.
  694 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion and that the transfer of a declaratory judgment action to another district was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• In re Bristol Indus. Corp. v. Bristol Indus. Corp.
  690 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The bankruptcy court erred by treating a motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion without notice and by misapplying legal principles regarding bailments and sales of fungible goods.
• John J. Franks, M.D. v. Nimmo
  683 F.2d 1290· 10th Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff had not demonstrated irreparable injury and had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Palmieri v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  682 F.2d 295· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the franchisee failed to present sufficient evidence of Mobil's bad faith or discriminatory motive to warrant a preliminary injunction under the PMPA. The PMPA does not require franchisors to use objectively reasonable rent criteria, only to avoid discriminato
• Escobar v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  678 F.2d 398· 2d Cir.· 1982-05-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the second termination notice provided by Mobil Oil to its franchisee, Escobar, was legally sufficient under the PMPA, despite including alternative termination dates.
• Princeton Combustion Research Labs., Inc. v. Dir., John McCARTHY, Jr., United States Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., Lewis Research Ctr. at Cleveland, Ohio. Appeal of Shaker Research Corp.
  674 F.2d 1016· 3d Cir.· 1982-03-29 ·cited 6×
  A district court's review of a government procurement decision is limited to determining if the agency's decision was irrational; if the decision is found rational, the court must deny a preliminary injunction, even if procedural irregularities occurred.
• Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co.
  673 F.2d 1161· 10th Cir.· 1982-03-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that jurisdiction attached first in the Texas court because it was filed first, and the New Mexico court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction to prevent the Texas action from proceeding.
• Wilhelmina Pope v. R.R. Ret. Bd.
  672 F.2d 972· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred by ordering retroactive notice for a class of annuitants who, while denied a pre-recoupment oral hearing, were otherwise notified of their rights.
• ABA Distribs., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
  661 F.2d 712· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the relief was justified by the record.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Bd. OF Trade OF the City OF Chicago
  657 F.2d 124· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by consolidating a preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits without adequate notice, thereby depriving the Commission of a full opportunity to present its case. However, the denial of the preliminary injunction was aff
• Brotherhood OF Railway Carmen OF the United States AND Canada, AFL-CIO v. Pac. Fruit Express Co. & S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  651 F.2d 651· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dispute over whether PFE's actions constituted an abandonment of facilities or a merger was a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act, requiring resolution by the National Railroad Adjustment Board or agreed-upon mediation, not the courts.
• Exxon Corp. v. United States
  655 F.2d 1112· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court exercised its supervisory powers to consolidate litigation concerning oil pricing regulations in the District of Columbia action, staying proceedings in the Texas action.
• Cole v. United States
  657 F.2d 107· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-11 ·cited 6×·via Application For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the suit was properly removed to federal court and subsequently dismissed due to sovereign immunity, and that the injunctive relief granted was proper.
• Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. Goldschmidt
  506 F. Supp. 350· S.D. Fla.· 1981-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits or suffering irreparable injury.
• Walker v. Wegner
  624 F.2d 60· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that abstention under Younger v. Harris is not appropriate because the administrative proceeding cannot resolve the constitutional claims and requiring exhaustion would cause undue delay and prior restraint.
• Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. Brown-Port Co.
  621 F.2d 255· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-25 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  A preliminary injunction cannot be granted based solely on the potential irreparable harm to a non-party sublessee; the plaintiff must demonstrate irreparable harm to itself.
• Health Clubs OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Ed Austin
  381 So. 2d 1174· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-03-18 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  A health club may be permanently enjoined as a public nuisance in its entirety where the trial court finds that it cannot be operated legitimately without permitting acts of lewdness, and an injunction is not overly broad when grounded on a factual finding that illegal conduct is
• Bowe v. Bd. OF Election Comm'rs OF the City OF Chicago
  614 F.2d 1147· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits due to an undeveloped factual record regarding the signature requirements.
• In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation
  617 F.2d 807· D.C. Cir.· 1980-01-18 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in evaluating the four factors for injunctive relief.
• Energy Action Educ. Found. v. Andrus
  631 F.2d 751· D.C. Cir.· 1979-12-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the Secretary of Interior has not yet contravened the letter of the law, continued delay in implementing new leasing regulations may constitute an abuse of discretion.
• The Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF Cal.
  600 F.2d 1309· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly applied the doctrine of res judicata to deny the utilities' request for a preliminary injunction.
• Harris v. Wilters
  596 F.2d 678· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-08 ·cited 6×·via Mandatory Preliminary Injunction
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction to fund his state coram nobis proceeding.
• ST. Martin's Press v. Carey
  605 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a genuine threat of prosecution, thus lacking a justiciable controversy required for federal court intervention.
• Pharm. Soc'y OF the State OF NEW York, Inc. v. Lefkowitz
  586 F.2d 953· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the basic requirements for such relief, including showing probable success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Reed v. Cleveland Bd. OF Educ.
  581 F.2d 570· 6th Cir.· 1978-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's April 21, 1978 order, which restructured the administration of the Cleveland school system without notice or a hearing, was an appealable mandatory injunction that violated procedural rules and was not justified by the circumstances.
• Reginald and Otelia Grant v. Smith
  574 F.2d 252· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's emphasis on the plaintiffs' lack of good faith may have improperly influenced its determination of discrimination claims under certain provisions of the Fair Housing Act and remanded for further findings. The court also held that the standard
• The Cosm. v. State OF Minn.
  575 F.2d 1256· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Minnesota statute requiring specific placement of a warning label on products using certain chlorofluorocarbon propellants is preempted by federal regulation.
• Hopper v. Carter
  572 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-10 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the government's procedures for determining the death of missing servicemen, as amended by Service Regulations, satisfy due process requirements and do not violate constitutional rights.