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

• Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Fernandez
  905 So. 2d 213· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-05-11 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  Miami-Dade County appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction against landowners operating commercial party businesses on properties zoned for agriculture without the required certificates of use. The court reversed, holding that when a government entity seeks an injunction t
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. City of Miami
  287 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2003-09-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that National Advertising Company lacks standing to challenge provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance that restrict noncommercial speech because its interest in noncommercial speech is de minimis (2%).
• Koziara v. City of Casselberry
  239 F. Supp. 2d 1245· M.D. Fla.· 2002-12-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiffs' federal claims because the issues raised could have been litigated in prior state court proceedings.
• Banyan Lakes Home Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Sch. Dist. OF Palm Beach Cnty.
  823 So. 2d 247· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-08-07 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a temporary injunction.
• Cent. Fla. Invs., Inc. v. Orange Cnty. Code Enf't Bd.
  790 So. 2d 593· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-08-03 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  Central Florida Investments and affiliated entities appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit against Orange County for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging the County's denial of their amendment request to operate motorized boats and jet skis on Big Sand L
• Sears Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arnold
  745 So. 2d 485· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-11-22 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  The First District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a lower court's denial of a temporary injunction, finding that a non-compete agreement remained enforceable after a stock purchase and that the former employees' solicitation of customers constituted a breach. The court empha
• Univ. Books & Videos, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  33 F. Supp. 2d 1364· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-19 ·cited 5×
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim regarding the zoning ordinance's limitations on adult entertainment establishments.
• Speer v. Evangelisto
  662 So. 2d 1340· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-11-15 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  Speer and Saliu appealed an injunction ordering return of restaurant and bar equipment that had been removed from Florida premises. The court reversed the injunction, holding that because the property had already been removed from the state and the appellees could be fully compen
• Callaway Golf Co. v. Golf Clean, Inc.
  915 F. Supp. 1206· M.D. Fla.· 1995-08-08 ·cited 5×
  The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the defendant's golf clubs were confusingly similar to the plaintiff's trade dress and likely infringed upon the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress rights under the Lanham Act.
• One World One Family Now v. City of Key W.
  852 F. Supp. 1005· S.D. Fla.· 1994-05-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the sale of expressive T-shirts from portable tables on public sidewalks constitutes protected First Amendment activity, and the City's permit scheme was likely unconstitutional due to unbridled discretion.
• Sierra Club v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  992 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the FDIC, but vacated the injunction because the plaintiffs had not yet shown entitlement to relief and the district court failed to enter required findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Merrill Lynch v. Hagerty
  808 F. Supp. 1555· S.D. Fla.· 1992-10-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored granting a preliminary injunction.
• T-Marc, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty.
  804 F. Supp. 1500· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while most of the challenged ordinance provisions were likely constitutional, certain employee disclosure requirements were overly intrusive and not substantially related to the stated government interests, warranting an injunction.
• NEW England Braiding Co., Inc. v. A.W. Chesterton Co.
  970 F.2d 878· Fed. Cir.· 1992-07-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying NEBCO's motion for a preliminary injunction, as NEBCO failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the patent's inventorship.
• Dirk Laureyssens v. Idea Grp., Inc.
  964 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the doctrine of 'secondary meaning in the making' is not recognized under the Lanham Act, and reversed the preliminary injunction for trade dress infringement. It also affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement.
• O'Donnell Constr. Co. v. Dist. OF Columbia
  963 F.2d 420· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the District of Columbia Minority Contracting Act, as applied, likely violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause because it lacks a strong basis in evidence to support its racial classifications and is not narrowly tailored.
• Hayden v. Beese
  596 So. 2d 1207· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-04-08 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  Tenants appealed the denial of a temporary injunction to prevent eviction under Florida's summary procedure statute. The court upheld the constitutionality of the summary eviction statute and the delegation of rulemaking authority to the legislature, affirming the denial of the i
• First Assembly of God of Naples v. Collier Cnty.
  775 F. Supp. 383· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-04 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court denied the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment free exercise and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims.
• Weaver v. Univ. OF Cincinnati
  942 F.2d 1039· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the agency shop fee collection scheme violated First Amendment rights under Hudson, and the issue was not moot despite subsequent renotification.
• Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCAIN Foods, Ltd.
  941 F.2d 970· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, as the district court did not clearly err in its findings regarding probable success on the merits, the geographic scope, or the duration of the injunction.
• Rey v. Guy Gannett Publ'g Co.
  766 F. Supp. 1142· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• City OF Mount Clemens v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  917 F.2d 908· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for failing to exhaust administrative remedies, but correctly denied the preliminary injunction and limited discovery.
• Lyonel DOR v. Dist. Dir.
  891 F.2d 997· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the appellant's continued detention by the INS is legal and that the terms of the court's stay of deportation have been satisfied, allowing for the vacation of the stay.
• United States v. Medina
  718 F. Supp. 928· S.D. Fla.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the government need not demonstrate irreparable harm or balance hardships when seeking an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 401(a) to enforce the Communications Act.
• Joint Bd. OF Control OF the Flathead v. United States
  862 F.2d 195· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Joint Board failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by not participating in the BIA's comment period or administrative appeal process before filing suit.
• Chisom v. Buddy Roemer
  853 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction to enjoin a state judicial election should not have been granted because the potential disruption to the state's judicial system and the disenfranchisement of voters outweighed the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, and
• Jupiter Wreck, Inc. v. the Unidentified
  691 F. Supp. 1377· S.D. Fla.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the resolution of title to the res in federal court without state consent, thus a preliminary injunction cannot issue in the in rem action. The removed state law action must be remanded.
• Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp.
  847 F.2d 1398· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 5×
  Equitable defenses such as laches and estoppel are available to a party challenging the enforcement of an incontestable trademark registration.
• Fundicao Tupy S.A. v. The United States & Cast Iron Pipe Fittings Comm.
  841 F.2d 1101· Fed. Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 5×
  The appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the trial court has since entered a final judgment on the merits.
• Digre v. Roseville Schs. Indep. Dist. NO. 623
  841 F.2d 245· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the school district did not violate the stay-put provision by placing Sean in special education, and the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for preliminary injunctive relief.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Textron, Inc.
  836 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring Textron to pay retiree health and life insurance premiums.
• Harlan L. Jacobsen v. United States Postal Serv.
  812 F.2d 1151· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-13 ·cited 5×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of 20 U.S.C. § 107d-3 as applied to newspaper vending machines on perimeter sidewalks, and that the balance of hardships tipped in his favor.
• Feller v. Brock
  802 F.2d 722· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the West Virginia district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that conflicted with a prior, binding injunction from the District of Columbia, and that intervention as of right should have been granted.
• Dimitrios Avramidis v. Arco Petroleum Prods. Co.
  798 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that dissolving a preliminary injunction did not require a new 180-day notice period for franchise termination, as the original notice was sufficient and the dealers' actions caused the delay.
• Loveridge v. Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc.
  788 F.2d 914· 2d Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the appellee failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any potential financial losses were compensable by money damages.
• Majorica, S.A. v. R.H. Macy & Co., Inc.
  762 F.2d 7· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-02 ·cited 5×
  A significant delay in seeking preliminary injunctive relief can neutralize the presumption of irreparable harm required for such relief, even if the delay does not constitute laches.
• Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  606 F. Supp. 132· S.D. Fla.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 5×
  The court granted the motion to establish an escrow fund for royalty payments and a preliminary injunction against termination of the license agreement.
• Nartowicz v. Clayton Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  736 F.2d 646· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the school district's practices of permitting a religious student group to meet on school premises and announcing church-sponsored activities, as these practices likel
• Swensen v. Lofton
  457 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-07-06 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. The appellate court reversed the injunction order, holding that the appellees' application failed to allege sufficient facts to establish irreparable harm as required for equitable relief, and that the
• BAM Historic Dist. Ass'n v. Koch
  723 F.2d 233· 2d Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction and the dismissal of the due process claim, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Brown v. Am. Petrofina Mktg., Inc.
  555 F. Supp. 1327· M.D. Fla.· 1983-02-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to permanent injunctive relief under the PMPA against Fina, Huntley-Jiffy, or Sun States, and denied relief against Clay as well, finding Clay's nonrenewal of franchises was permissible.
• Hooks v. Wainwright
  536 F. Supp. 1330· M.D. Fla.· 1982-04-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the state's proposed law library system alone is insufficient to guarantee indigent inmates meaningful access to the courts, and that some form of attorney assistance is constitutionally required.
• United States v. Generix Drug Corp.
  498 F. Supp. 288· S.D. Fla.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the government is entitled to an injunction against the distribution of generic drugs if it demonstrates a reasonable possibility that differences in excipients between the generic and pioneer drug affect the generic drug's safety and effectiveness.
• J.B.K., Inc. v. Caron
  600 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Missouri's prostitution statute was not an abuse of discretion.
• Ohio Contractors Ass'n v. The Econ. Dev. Admin.
  580 F.2d 213· 6th Cir.· 1978-07-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Begel v. Ira Hirsch
  350 So. 2d 514· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-09-27 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  Frank Begel appealed an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction that prohibited him from advertising his bail bond business under his own name in Dade and Broward Counties, and also appealed the denial of his motion for a protective order against an overly broad disco
• Civic Improvement Comm. v. Volpe
  459 F.2d 957· 4th Cir.· 1972-05-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction.
• Pub. Serv. Co. OF Ind., Inc. v. Hamil
  416 F.2d 648· 7th Cir.· 1969-09-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Administrator's temporary operation of the power station, even if the initial loan was improvidently made without full state consent, is permissible under Section 7 of the Act to protect the government's security interest for a limited period.
• City OF Miami v. E. Realty Co., Inc.
  202 So. 2d 760· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-08-22 ·cited 5×
  Eastern Realty Company, as successor to subdivider Walter Flanders, sought to quiet title to a park strip in Miami that had been dedicated to lot owners, and to enjoin the City of Miami from developing adjacent bay lands. The court affirmed that the subdivider retained legal titl
• The City OF Miami Beach v. Seacoast Towers-Miami Beach, Inc.
  148 So. 2d 554· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-01-17 ·cited 5×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the chancellor. The court also noted that the issue of the injunction bond was not properly raised on appeal.