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

• Marcera v. Chinlund
  565 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of class certification and preliminary relief without an evidentiary hearing was improper.
• LA Gran Familia, Inc. v. Cuba Pharmacy, Inc.
  349 So. 2d 769· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-08-30 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
• Paul A. Richter dba the Body Shop v. Dep't OF Alcoholic Bev. Control OF the State OF Cal.
  559 F.2d 1168· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state's regulation prohibiting nude dancing in establishments licensed to sell liquor is facially constitutional, and its application to the appellant's establishment was permissible under the Twenty-first Amendment, even if the dancing had some expressive
• Consumers Union OF the United States, Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n
  565 F.2d 721· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a case or controversy existed despite a preliminary injunction in a related case, allowing the FOIA litigation to proceed.
• La. Consumer's League, Inc. v. La. State Bd. OF Optometry Exam'rs
  557 F.2d 473· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a recent Supreme Court decision mandates reconsideration of the denial of a preliminary injunction against statutes prohibiting the price advertising of prescription eyeglasses.
• Wright v. Chief OF Transit Police
  558 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without making findings on whether reasonable regulations could accommodate plaintiffs' First Amendment rights and the Transit Authority's safety concerns.
• Div. 580, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Cent. NEW York Reg'l Transp. Auth.
  556 F.2d 659· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Union failed to make a clear showing of probable success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions to warrant a preliminary injunction against Taylor Law fact-finding proceedings.
• Marlboro Corp. v. The Ass'n OF Indep. Colleges & Schs., Inc.
  556 F.2d 78· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, as the appellant failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits regarding procedural due process claims.
• In re W. F. Hurley, Inc. v. Martrac Farms, Inc.
  553 F.2d 1096· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 6×
  A Chapter X bankruptcy court may enjoin proceedings in another court involving the Chapter X debtor or trustee to protect its jurisdiction, but enjoining another court itself, rather than the litigants, is an extraordinary measure to be used only in exigent circumstances and is g
• Kqed, Inc. v. Houchins
  546 F.2d 284· 9th Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute does not abridge First and Fourteenth Amendment protections because it does not deny the press access to information available to the general public.
• Hanson v. United States
  540 F.2d 947· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief.
• Forest Hills Util. Co. & David R. Pheils, Jr. v. City OF Heath
  539 F.2d 592· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in abstaining from hearing the utility company's claims, but that abstention was not appropriate for plaintiff Pheils' separate claims.
• Sadowski v. Shevin
  351 So. 2d 44· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-06-24 ·cited 6×
  William Sadowski, a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives, appealed the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction against Florida Statute § 106.15, which prohibits certain campaign advertising by candidates before they officially qualify for office. The court
• Jones v. Pac. Intermountain Express
  536 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because the moving party did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, despite a recent Supreme Court decision impacting the analysis. The matter is remanded for trial.
• Apel v. Murphy
  526 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 6×
  A single district judge cannot abstain from deciding matters of state law when a substantial constitutional question is raised, as this requires a three-judge court.
• Germon v. The Times Mirror Co.
  520 F.2d 786· 9th Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  A newspaper dealer is not immune from termination under contract provisions, even if they have filed an antitrust suit against the publisher, unless the termination is shown to be part of an unlawful anti-competitive scheme.
• Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Model Cities Agency
  519 F.2d 740· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to establish a substantial probability of success on the merits regarding breach of contract or violation of citizen participation requirements.
• Adelaide Hamilton v. Butz
  520 F.2d 709· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that payments made to Alaska Natives pursuant to the Alaska Natives Claims Settlement Act should not be considered 'resources' for determining eligibility for food stamp assistance.
• Byrne v. REC Ctrs., Inc.
  309 So. 2d 177· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-03-14 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court reversed a temporary injunction because the trial court failed to require the plaintiff to post bond as mandated by Rule 1.610(b) RCP, but allowed reinstatement upon proper bonding.
• USAchem, Inc. v. Goldstein
  512 F.2d 163· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-14 ·cited 6×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that while a restrictive covenant was valid to the extent it prevented solicitation of former customers, it was overly broad for general competition. The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief due to Chem's delay and the jury's finding of no damages, but re
• Chicago Hous. Tenants Org., Inc. v. Chicago Hous. Auth.
  512 F.2d 19· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction was not a final judgment and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction.
• Armstrong v. Maple Leaf Apts., Ltd.
  508 F.2d 518· 10th Cir.· 1974-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a federal court injunction should have been issued to prohibit Oklahoma probate court proceedings seeking retroactive approval of a deed from an Indian grantor, as the state court cannot approve a conveyance over the grantor's objection.
• W. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc.
  501 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prior decision of a three-judge court precluded the carriers from challenging the validity of the ICC's refund order, and that Section 16(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act, incorporated into Part II, provided a statutory cause of action for shippers to enf
• The Cnty. OF Nassau & the Nassau Cnty. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. The Cost OF Living Council & the United States
  499 F.2d 1340· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1974-06-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's orders interfering with administrative proceedings were invalid and improperly granted, and that the appeal concerning intervention was moot.
• Scott Paper Co. & Int'l Paper Co. v. Gulf Coast Pulpwood Ass'n, Inc.
  491 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, and only that denial is presently reviewable.
• League OF Voluntary Hosps. & Homes OF NEW York v. Local 1199
  490 F.2d 1398· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1973-12-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, adjudging the Union in civil contempt, and imposing fines, as the CLC regulations had a rational basis and the Union violated court orders.
• State OF Me. v. FRI
  486 F.2d 713· 1st Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the EPA Administrator to allot funds to Maine, as the order was procedurally sound and preserved the possibility of effective final relief.
• Carpenters Dist. Council OF Jacksonville & Vicinity v. The Honorable Roger J. Waybright
  282 So. 2d 193· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-09-13 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court amended its prior order on mandate to grant a writ of prohibition, restraining the lower court from further jurisdiction except to dissolve the injunction and consider damages.
• Local NO. 6 v. Boyd G. Heminger, Inc.
  483 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1973-08-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to compel arbitration by improperly assessing the merits of the unions' claims.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Datronics Eng'rs, Inc.
  490 F.2d 250· 4th Cir.· 1973-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court rescinded its prior order requiring a preliminary injunction and remanded the case for the district court to determine if an injunction should be issued.
• State OF Me. v. FRI
  483 F.2d 439· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a temporary restraining order that had not yet exceeded its statutory ten-day limit, even if extended by an additional ten days.
• Colo. Labor Council, AFL-CIO v. Am. Fed'n OF Labor & Cong. OF Indus. Orgs.
  481 F.2d 396· 10th Cir.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) Title III, concerning trusteeships, does not apply to state or local central bodies, which are explicitly excluded from the definiti
• Delbert Hawkins v. Coleman
  475 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court should proceed with the case as a live controversy may not be before the appellate court.
• Morry Wingold v. Horowitz
  274 So. 2d 591· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-03-06 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this contract dispute involving a Bahamas real estate development financing arrangement, the trial court cancelled a mortgage and promissory note, appointed a receiver, and restructured the parties' ownership interests in the underlying corporation. The appellate court affirme
• Penn Galvanizing Co. v. Lukens Steel Co.
  468 F.2d 1021· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the interpretation of Navy specifications and antitrust claims.
• K-2 SKI Co. v. Head SKI Co., Inc.
  467 F.2d 1087· 9th Cir.· 1972-07-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improvidently granted because the moving party failed to establish a sufficiently reliable factual basis for the probability of success on the merits, especially when allegations were substantially controverted.
• The Hanna Mining Co. v. United Steelworkers OF Am.
  464 F.2d 565· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-21 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that while employees violated the collective bargaining agreement by striking, their actions were provoked by the company's safety violations and failures to negotiate, thus warranting a modified equitable remedy rather than outright denial of relief.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Seminole Asphalt Ref., Inc.
  262 So. 2d 215· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-05-18 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  A party aggrieved by a temporary injunction may appeal the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and affidavits supporting it as a matter of right under Florida Appellate Rule 4.2, without awaiting the trial court's decision on a motion to dissolve. When appealing the sufficiency of
• Bomann Golf, Inc. v. Cosmos Indus., Inc.
  459 F.2d 1090· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's interpretation of Florida's substituted service statute was reasonable and that the defendants waived any defect in service of process by failing to raise it below.
• Little Beaver Theatre, Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein
  259 So. 2d 217· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-02-29 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate reversible error in the contempt order, affirming the trial court's decision.
• Devcon Corp. v. Woodhill Chem. Sales Corp.
  455 F.2d 830· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's trademark '5 MINUTE' for epoxy glue was likely descriptive and vacated the preliminary injunction.
• United States v. Christie Indus., Inc.
  465 F.2d 1000· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendants violated the preliminary injunction by mailing fireworks kits to minors.
• Jimmie's Inc. & Jimmie's Realty Corp. of W. Haven v. The City OF W. Haven & the W. Haven Redev. Agency
  436 F.2d 1339· 2d Cir.· 1971-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the alleged interference with the plaintiffs' property did not rise to the level of an unconstitutional taking, and thus the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the damages claim.
• Huseman v. Finch
  424 F.2d 1237· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellants had not exhausted their administrative remedies as a hearing was still pending.
• DOE v. Gen. Hosp. OF the Dist. OF Columbia
  434 F.2d 423· D.C. Cir.· 1970-03-20 ·cited 6×
  The court refused to find individual defendants in civil contempt. The judge believes the court has exhausted its judicial powers and should not create regulations for the hospital.
• Saunders v. The Va. Polytechnic Inst.
  417 F.2d 1127· 4th Cir.· 1969-11-10 ·cited 6×
  A state university cannot deny readmission to a student solely for participating in a peaceful, non-disruptive demonstration, as this violates the student's First Amendment right to free expression.
• Contreras v. Merced High Sch. Dist.
  415 F.2d 771· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-13 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Barrows
  404 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 6×·via Temporary Injunction
  A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief to prevent irreparable damage to government land, even if the validity of a mining claim on that land is still pending administrative determination.
• Gold Master Corp. v. Miller
  380 F.2d 128· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was properly granted because the plaintiff established a probable right to relief and the balance of hardships favored the injunction.
• The Long Island Rail Rd. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n NO. 156
  368 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1966-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding that the union's resort to self-help measures like work slowdowns was unwarranted due to their disregard of the Railway Labor Act's dispute resolution procedures.