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

• Dean v. Coughlin
  804 F.2d 207· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing its own detailed plan for prison dental care without sufficient deference to the state's proposed plan.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. PPG Indus., Inc.
  798 F.2d 1500· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction, rather than a hold separate order, is warranted when the FTC demonstrates a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a Clayton Act Section 7 claim, and the equities do not strongly favor the transaction.
• Wilson v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs. Appeal of Margaret M. Heckler
  796 F.2d 36· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the Secretary's use of certain severity regulations, but vacated a portion of the injunction for overbreadth.
• James A. Merritt AND Sons v. Marsh
  791 F.2d 328· 4th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against the suspension of a contractor from bidding on government contracts, as the contractor was unlikely to succeed on his constitutional claim and the public interest favored the suspension.
• Am. Trading Transp. Co., Inc. v. United States
  791 F.2d 942· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Maritime Administration (MarAd) did not err in permitting temporary transfers of subsidized oil tankers into the Alaskan oil trade, as the agency adequately considered the arguments of domestic carriers.
• Boyd v. Roland
  789 F.2d 347· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that property eligible for inclusion in the National Register is protected by the National Historic Preservation Act, even if not officially determined eligible. However, the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion given the project's prog
• United States v. Town OF Cicero
  786 F.2d 331· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred by denying a preliminary injunction based solely on the facial neutrality of Cicero's residency ordinances, failing to properly apply the disparate impact analysis established in Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
• Southerland v. Thigpen
  784 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a prisoner's interest in breastfeeding her infant son is outweighed by the state's compelling interests in maintaining prison security, order, and resources, and that such a right is fundamentally inconsistent with incarceration.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated January 30 v. Hon. Robert L. Carter
  784 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 4×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum is generally not permitted without first submitting to a contempt citation, and the Perlman exception does not apply here.
• Storer Commc'ns, Inc. v. Mogel
  625 F. Supp. 1194· S.D. Fla.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' sale, distribution, and installation of equipment designed to intercept cable television services without authorization violated federal and state laws, entitling the plaintiffs to preliminary injunctive relief.
• Aurora Bancshares Corp. & Ralph L. Egeland v. Weston
  777 F.2d 385· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dismissal of a preliminary injunction request, based on discovery violations and unclean hands, is an appealable interlocutory order, and denied a motion to dismiss the appeal.
• Mut. OF Omaha Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Novak
  775 F.2d 247· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against trademark infringement, but remanded for an expedited trial on the merits.
• Span-Eng Assocs. v. Weidner
  771 F.2d 464· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an injunction preventing plaintiffs from proceeding in a related Arizona action, as the defendants failed to make a strong showing of necessity for such an injunction.
• Adamsons v. Wharton
  771 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the appeal frivolous and awarding double costs and attorneys' fees.
• ATS Melbourne, Inc. v. City OF Melbourne
  475 So. 2d 1257· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-08-15 ·cited 4×
  ATS Melbourne, Inc., operating a topless bar (The Doll House IV) in violation of local zoning ordinances, appeals a temporary injunction prohibiting its operation. The court affirms, holding that the city's zoning ordinance is facially valid and that the business lacks standing t
• Am. Exploration Co. v. Columbia GAS Transmission Corp.
  779 F.2d 310· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Columbia's proposed purchase schedule was a permissible curtailment under the contract, as 'market demand' includes price considerations, and Columbia acted within its contractual rights and good faith obligations.
• NO East-West Hwy. Comm., Inc. v. Chandler
  767 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the highway project was a modernization of an existing road and not a "major Federal action" requiring an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA.
• ST. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carbomedics, Inc.
  764 F.2d 500· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's orders granting preliminary injunctive relief, finding the district court permissibly weighed relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion.
• Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Eden Servs.
  759 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in including northern Virginia in the exclusive territory and in requiring 150% commission, but did not abuse its discretion in enjoining the termination of the distributorship contract.
• Calusa Golf, Inc. v. Lizabeth Carlson and Curtis Carlson
  464 So. 2d 1271· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the fence served a useful purpose, even if spite was a partial motive.
• Nat'l Senior Citizens Law Ctr. v. Legal Servs. Corp.
  751 F.2d 1391· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
• Am. Fed'n OF Television & Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. Inner City Broad. Corp.
  748 F.2d 884· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that the parties did not intend to be bound by an oral agreement, as federal labor law favors collective bargaining agreements and technical rules of contract do not control. The court reversed the denial of arbitration and
• Doyle J. Williams v. Wyrick
  747 F.2d 1231· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that prison regulations restricting an inmate's access to the law library and investigator did not violate his constitutional right of access to the courts, as they were justified by legitimate penological interests.
• Hampton Roads Shipping Ass'n v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n (AFL-CIO)
  746 F.2d 1015· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction restraining a union strike was appropriate, but the order compelling arbitration under a local contract was unnecessary because the dispute was already subject to arbitration and litigation under a master contract.
• The Populist Party v. Herschler
  746 F.2d 656· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding Wyoming's ballot access requirements for independent candidates and new political parties, thus denying their motion for an injunction pending appeal.
• Laurence Gerard & Firejet Am., Ltd. v. Almouli
  746 F.2d 936· 2d Cir.· 1984-10-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the appellees failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law.
• Harris v. United States
  745 F.2d 535· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm, as adequate remedies exist in the Court of Claims.
• Champion v. State OF Cal.
  738 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the deduction of fair share fees, as existing Supreme Court precedent generally upholds such deductions and the specific circumstances did not warrant extraordinary rel
• Briggs Transp. Co. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  739 F.2d 341· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The abrogation of collective bargaining agreements in Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not automatically lift the jurisdictional restrictions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, preventing federal courts from enjoining peaceful employee picketing and strike activities.
• N.A. Sales Co., Inc. v. Chapman Indus. Corp.
  736 F.2d 854· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Chapman was in contempt for violating the permanent injunction after its entry, but not for the period before the permanent injunction was issued due to lack of notice. The court affirmed the clarifying order and the award of costs and fees.
• The Hillhaven Corp. v. Wis. Dep't OF Health & Soc. Servs.
  733 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, given the appellate court's reversal of the prior ruling on the same issue.
• Spath v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  728 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the student failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for his constitutional claims and contract claims, thus reversing the preliminary injunction.
• Merrill Lynch v. Thompson
  575 F. Supp. 978· N.D. Fla.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dispute was subject to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Sattellite Indus., Inc. v. Stutz
  437 So. 2d 222· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-09-14 ·cited 4×
  Sattellite Industries appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to enforce a non-compete covenant against a former employee, Grace Stutz, who began working for a competitor. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court's discretion to deny a preliminary i
• Oasis Petroleum Corp. v. United States Dep't OF Energy
  718 F.2d 1558· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1983-09-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by not referring the entire dispute to the Department of Energy's Office of Hearings and Appeals under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
• Wald v. Regan
  708 F.2d 794· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the Treasury Department regulation prohibiting travel-related expenses to Cuba lacked statutory authority because the 'savings clause' did not permit reliance on the repealed Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) when the specific authority was not being exercised
• JIM Crockett Promotion, Inc. v. The City OF Charlotte
  706 F.2d 486· 4th Cir.· 1983-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the term 'unnecessary' in the noise ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, but the presumption provision was also invalid. However, the section regulating sound amplification was not unconstitutionally vague.
• The State OF Kan. v. Brock Adams
  705 F.2d 1267· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying costs and expenses incurred during a temporary restraining order, as the injunction was dissolved due to intervening Congressional action rather than being wrongfully issued.
• Meristem Valley Nursery, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  428 So. 2d 726· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-03-15 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that while the temporary injunction was overly broad, the subsequent mandatory injunction ordering removal of structures was proper because the appellant failed to comply with the original order.
• Rushia v. Town OF Ashburnham
  701 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against a threatened state prosecution for violating a town's Public Display Minors Law.
• Ltd Commodities, Inc. v. Igor G. Perederij & Beacon Data Processing Serv. Corp.
  699 F.2d 404· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge argues the district court abused its equity power by ordering payment of Data's claim from a letter of credit without adequate security for LTD.
• Ozell Jones v. Wichita State Univ. & Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  698 F.2d 1082· 10th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim that NCAA eligibility rules violated the Equal Protection Clause did not present a substantial federal question, and even if it did, the rules were rationally related to legitimate objectives.
• Tenant Affairs Bd. v. Pierce
  693 F.2d 797· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the district court's determination of no irreparable harm.
• Comm'n ON Ethics v. L.H. Lancaster
  421 So. 2d 711· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-11-09 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Ethics Commission appealed a trial court's denial of its motion to change venue and the entry of a temporary injunction restraining it from conducting ethics proceedings against a county elections supervisor. The appellate court reversed, holding that venue was improp
• Fletcher J. Herndon, Jr. v. The ELI Witt Co.
  420 So. 2d 920· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-10-21 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  Fletcher Herndon appeals an interlocutory order denying his motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order based on a covenant not to compete contained in a settlement agreement with his former employer, Eli Witt Company. The court upheld the five-year, three-state non-compete
• Elevator Mfrs'. Ass'n OF NEW York, Inc. v. Local 1
  689 F.2d 382· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a work stoppage arising from an arbitrable grievance, even if it involves a refusal to perform voluntary overtime, can be enjoined under the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
• Burgess v. Affleck
  683 F.2d 596· 1st Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 4×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that while Rhode Island's MCAC composition was non-compliant, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to warrant enjoining Medicaid cuts, and their APA claim also failed.
• Int'l Union v. Dana Corp.
  679 F.2d 634· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not preclude injunctions against employer self-help measures that undermine the arbitral process, even if those measures involve speech protected by the First Amendment.
• 2829 Corp. v. Div. OF Alcoholic Bev. & Tobacco OF the Dep't OF Bus. Reg.
  410 So. 2d 539· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-02-03 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves a dispute over the suspension of an alcoholic beverage license. The appellate court reversed a lower court's injunction that had stayed administrative proceedings, ruling that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the appellate court's directi
• Wilfredo Marquez-Colon v. Reagan
  668 F.2d 611· 1st Cir.· 1981-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court vacated the district court's injunction, finding that a consent agreement between the government and the Commonwealth rendered most claims moot and that injunctive relief was inappropriate for remaining claims given the equities and the agreement's conditions.