Preliminary Injunction

3,388 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,537 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Ewing v. Amoco OIL Co.
  823 F.2d 1432· 10th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a franchisor cannot non-renew a trial franchise for any reason if the reasons are pretextual or invalid, and that a selling franchisor must ensure the purchasing franchisor offers a non-discriminatory franchise to the existing franchisee.
• Zaida Lydia De Choudens v. The Gov't Dev. Bank OF Puerto RICO
  801 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 56×
• The Cnty. OF Cook v. Midcon Corp.
  773 F.2d 892· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied collateral estoppel to bar the plaintiffs' RICO claims, as the essential issues regarding the corporate reorganization and related financial practices were already litigated and decided in prior state court proceedings.
• Eligio Castro and Rafael Diaz Diaz v. United States
  775 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the appellants' claims, enjoining them from further litigation, and assessing costs, as they failed to exhaust administrative remedies, state valid claims, or demonstrate grounds for injunctive relief.
• Thompson v. Planning Comm'n OF the City OF Jacksonville
  464 So. 2d 1231· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-02-11 ·cited 56×
  Thompson property owners sought to enjoin construction of an office building across the street after the Planning Commission granted a parking variance to the owners. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding that the variance was im
• Unistar Corp. v. Child
  415 So. 2d 733· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-05-04 ·cited 56×
  Unistar Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to prevent former employees from using a customer list compiled at significant expense to solicit Unistar's customers. The trial court denied the injunction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the customer list const
• Warner Bros., Inc. v. GAY Toys, Inc.
  658 F.2d 76· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-24 ·cited 56×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a likelihood of confusion as to sponsorship of a toy car, even if the plaintiff does not manufacture toy cars, is sufficient to invoke the protection of the Lanham Act and warrant preliminary injunctive relief.
• Roth v. Bank OF THE Commonwealth
  583 F.2d 527· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-01 ·cited 56×
  The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings that have already commenced, unless an express statutory exception applies. Relying on Barancik to enjoin commenced state actions is improper judicial improvisation.
• United States v. Sch. Dist. OF Ferndale
  577 F.2d 1339· 6th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction based on the evidence presented.
• United States v. Spectro Foods Corp.
  544 F.2d 1175· 3d Cir.· 1976-10-13 ·cited 56×
  The court held that certain provisions of the preliminary injunction were overly broad and unsupported by evidence, and that the civil contempt order, based on those provisions, must be vacated. The court also found that the contempt proceedings lacked due process for any potenti
• Gilliam v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  538 F.2d 14· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the Lanham Act does not apply to claims of artistic integrity or distortion of a work, but only to misdescriptions of origin.
• Aerojet-General Corp. v. The Am. Arb. Ass'n
  478 F.2d 248· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-30 ·cited 56×
  Judicial review of an arbitrator's locale selection is permissible in extreme cases, but the district court erred in granting an injunction as the AAA's decision was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.
• Schonfeld v. Penza
  477 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while challenges to union official removal and eligibility might ordinarily require Secretary of Labor involvement, allegations of free speech suppression and procedural due process violations under Title I of the LMRDA grant federal courts jurisdiction.
• Minn. Bearing Co. v. White Motor Corp.
  470 F.2d 1323· 8th Cir.· 1973-01-09 ·cited 56×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, but erred in dismissing the parent corporation as a defendant, treating it as a summary judgment without sufficient clarity.
• Omega Importing Corp. v. Petri-Kine Camera Co., Inc.
  451 F.2d 1190· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-08 ·cited 56×
  The court held that a temporary injunction should issue to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of trademark rights, balancing the hardships and likelihood of confusion.
• Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph Int'l Corp. & Triumph of Europe, Inc.
  308 F.2d 196· 2d Cir.· 1962-09-17 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the lower court erred in granting a preliminary injunction based on a misconception of trademark law regarding non-competitive goods and the 'innocent junior user' doctrine.
• Subin v. Goldsmith
  224 F.2d 753· 2d Cir.· 1955-06-03 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the allegations in Counts I-IV were insufficient to state a claim for relief under SEC Rule X-14A-9, and that summary judgment was properly granted for Count V due to lack of proof.
• Rosa v. Resolution Tr. Corp.
  938 F.2d 383· 3d Cir.· 1991-06-27 ·cited 55×
  The court held that FIRREA's mandatory claims procedure bars claims for monetary relief against institutions for which RTC has been appointed receiver, but not claims for nonmonetary injunctive relief or claims against institutions not yet in receivership. Exhaustion of the claim
• NEW York State Nat'l Org. FOR Women v. Terry
  886 F.2d 1339· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-20 ·cited 55×
  The First Amendment does not grant a right to physically block access to abortion clinics or to tortiously harass individuals seeking services there, and injunctions limiting such actions are constitutional.
• Shondel v. McDERMOTT
  775 F.2d 859· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-28 ·cited 55×
  The court held that Shondel lacks standing to sue based on the violation of her stepfather's constitutional rights.
• Factors ETC., Inc. v. PRO Arts, Inc.
  579 F.2d 215· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-27 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the right of publicity for Elvis Presley survived his death and was validly transferred to Factors, and that Pro Arts' memorial poster was not privileged as a newsworthy event.
• Weatherby Assocs., Inc. v. Ballack
  783 So. 2d 1138· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-03-28 ·cited 54×·via Temporary Injunction
  Weatherby Associates sued former employee Ballack and competitors Capital Health and Capital Finance for breach of employment agreement and tortious interference. The trial court awarded attorney's fees under Florida's frivolous litigation statute (§57.105), finding the suit friv
• United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc.
  711 F.2d 1164· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-28 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a presentence report may not be disclosed to third parties without a compelling demonstration that disclosure is required to meet the ends of justice, and that the district court erred in denying Peerless's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld
  511 F.2d 904· 3d Cir.· 1975-02-28 ·cited 54×
  The court held that summary judgment for copyright infringement was improper because the similarities between the charts were not substantial enough to constitute unlawful appropriation, and therefore, the contempt citation must also be vacated.
• Del. River Port Auth. v. Transamerican Trailer Transp., Inc.
  501 F.2d 917· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, and other factors, including harm to third parties and the public interest, did not suppo
• Manual de J. Gomez v. Wilson
  477 F.2d 411· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court correctly found police spot checks unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, but the case should be remanded for further proceedings to determine the scope of relief, particularly regarding class action.
• Nader v. Volpe
  466 F.2d 261· D.C. Cir.· 1972-02-17 ·cited 54×
  A district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to compel disclosure of intra-governmental communications during an ongoing administrative rulemaking proceeding when a specific statutory review process exists in the courts of appeals.
• Safeway Stores v. Safeway Props., Inc.
  307 F.2d 495· 2d Cir.· 1962-08-14 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the plaintiff's established trademark use of "Safeway" in the grocery business, which had acquired secondary meaning, entitled it to a preliminary injunction against the defendant's use of the same name in its real estate business due to the likelihood of publ
• Progress Dev. Corp. v. Mitchell
  286 F.2d 222· 7th Cir.· 1961-01-04 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, but erred in dismissing certain counts of the complaint and dismissing one of the plaintiffs.
• Elbert B. Connell v. Dulien Steel Prods., Inc.
  240 F.2d 414· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-18 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the temporary restraining order, even if improperly extended, was not an appealable interlocutory injunction and that the appeal was premature.
• Perry v. Perry
  190 F.2d 601· D.C. Cir.· 1951-04-12 ·cited 54×
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Nelson
  872 F.2d 1555· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the INS to provide competent translators, allow witness testimony, and particularize information on the I-696 form for SAW applicants.
• Dori Zardui-Quintana v. Richard
  768 F.2d 1213· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district director's denial of stays of deportation was not arbitrary or capricious, as the statute does not require separate findings of a "particularly serious crime" and "danger to the community" when a conviction for a particularly serious crime is esta
• Zepeda v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  753 F.2d 719· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-12 ·cited 53×
  The court held that an injunction's scope is not overly broad simply because it benefits non-parties, and class certification is not required if class-wide relief is necessary to protect individual plaintiffs' rights.
• Processed Plastic Co. v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.
  675 F.2d 852· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-07 ·cited 53×
  A preliminary injunction was properly granted under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act because the toy manufacturer's deliberate copying of an iconic television show car created a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source or sponsorship, and such confusion causes irreparable har
• Jackson v. Stinchcomb
  635 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-27 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction for reinstatement because the plaintiff's federal claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits and the state law claim could not support federal jurisdiction.
• Constructors Ass'n of W. Pa. v. Kreps
  573 F.2d 811· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-07 ·cited 53×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the MBE set-aside provision of the Local Public Works Act, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits or sufficient irreparable
• Dolta Jo Morgan v. Fletcher
  518 F.2d 236· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-27 ·cited 53×
  A post-termination hearing is sufficient to satisfy due process requirements, and mere loss of income or benefits does not constitute irreparable injury justifying injunctive relief.
• Stell v. Savannah-Chatham Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  318 F.2d 425· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-24 ·cited 53×
  The Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction to desegregate schools, and framed an injunction for the District Court to enter.
• Highway Truck Drivers AND Helpers v. Cohen
  284 F.2d 162· 3d Cir.· 1960-11-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court acted in accord with the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 by granting a preliminary injunction against the use of union funds for officers' legal fees.
• Colucci v. EAR Rare Auto. Grp., Inc.
  918 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-01-25 ·cited 52×·via Temporary Injunction
  Richard Colucci appeals a preliminary injunction prohibiting him from competing nationwide for five years. The appellate court reversed, holding that Kar Kare Automotive Group failed to establish a legitimate business interest sufficient to support enforcement of the non-compete
• John v. State OF La. (Board OF Trs. FOR State Colleges & Univs.
  757 F.2d 698· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 52×
  A local rule cannot authorize summary judgment on a record that does not support it under Rule 56, and a violation of a local rule requiring a response does not justify summary judgment if the moving party has not met its initial burden.
• Lopez v. Heckler
  725 F.2d 1489· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-22 ·cited 52×
• W. Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan
  689 F.2d 950· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the OSHA inspection warrant was supported by administrative probable cause and was not overly broad. The district court improperly considered evidence not presented to the magistrate when re
• Fin. Gen. Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger
  680 F.2d 768· D.C. Cir.· 1982-05-18 ·cited 52×
  A federal court abuses its discretion by retaining pendent jurisdiction over novel and unsettled questions of local law after the federal claims have been dismissed, even if judicial economy would otherwise favor retention.
• Megapulse, Inc. v. Drew Lewis
  672 F.2d 959· D.C. Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Megapulse's claim was not a disguised contract action barred by the Tucker Act but rather a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act for injunctive relief.
• Powell v. Ward
  643 F.2d 924· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court properly found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a prior injunction regarding inmate disciplinary procedures and appropriately ordered remedies, but modified the period for expungement of records.
• Kampmeier v. Ewald Nyquist
  553 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 52×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient factual showing of likely success on the merits to warrant preliminary relief, and thus affirmed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Aguirre v. Chula Vista Sanitary Serv. & Sani-Tainer, Inc.
  542 F.2d 779· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-23 ·cited 52×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court erred by limiting its inquiry solely to the probability of success on the merits when considering a preliminary injunction, and that a two-part test involving serious questions and a balance of hardships should be applied.
• Pierre v. United States
  525 F.2d 933· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-08 ·cited 52×
  Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for declaratory or injunctive relief unrelated to custody. However, an independent action for such relief may be possible.