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

• United States v. O'Connell
  496 F.2d 1329· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that New York law governs the determination of implied easements in FHA foreclosure sales and that sufficient unity of interest among corporations dominated by the same individual may support an implied easement, even if the conveyance was involuntary.
• Impeach Nixon Comm. & Lynne Heidt v. Buck
  498 F.2d 37· 7th Cir.· 1974-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the CTA's denial of the plaintiffs' advertisement was likely unconstitutional, and a preliminary injunction should issue.
• David v. Travisono
  495 F.2d 562· 1st Cir.· 1974-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while a protective order under the All Writs Act to prevent retaliation against inmate plaintiffs was permissible, the specific language of the order was too vague and akin to a preliminary injunction, requiring specific factual findings not present.
• Daniel v. Wash. Cnty. Bd. OF Educ. & William Rawlings
  488 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction must be vacated because it failed to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a).
• Hart v. The Cmty. Sch. Bd. OF Brooklyn & N.Y. Sch. Dist. #21
  487 F.2d 223· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Helfant v. Kugler
  484 F.2d 1277· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-10 ·cited 4×
  The court concurred that extraordinary circumstances may justify federal intervention despite Younger abstention.
• Am. Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co., Inc. v. Rodriguez
  480 F.2d 223· 1st Cir.· 1973-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to prevent a former employee from soliciting customers, as the restrictive covenant was reasonable and enforceable under New York law and Puerto Rico public policy.
• Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp. v. Int'l Paper Co. & Int'l Navigation Ltd.
  477 F.2d 907· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case must be remanded because the trial court failed to enter formal findings of fact and conclusions of law, making appellate review impossible.
• Masszonia v. Washington
  476 F.2d 915· D.C. Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appeal has become moot due to subsequent events, including the demolition of one property and the abandonment and uninhabitability of another, rendering the original claims for relief moot.
• Cowart v. Gilson
  271 So. 2d 821· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-01-23 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  In a post-injunctive action, appellants challenged a trial court's denial of damages and alleged insufficiency of attorney's fees awarded following dissolution of a temporary injunction that had halted their housing project construction. The appellate court affirmed the denial of
• Ellis v. The Flying Tiger Corp.
  504 F.2d 1004· 7th Cir.· 1972-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding $600,000 in attorneys' fees without adequate justification, as the benefits to the class were not clearly attributable to counsel's efforts and the litigation involved minimal preparation.
• Citizens TO Preserve Foster Park v. Volpe
  466 F.2d 991· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs failed to show probable success on the merits regarding alleged violations of environmental and highway acts.
• Maxwell v. Wyman
  458 F.2d 1146· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that nursing homes are entitled to a preliminary injunction against state departments to prevent termination of Medicaid reimbursement without a hearing on waiver eligibility.
• The Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Atlas Fin. Corp.
  454 F.2d 278· 3d Cir.· 1972-01-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction restraining a company from making payments under a tax sharing agreement.
• Shasta Hatter v. LOS Angeles City High Sch. Dist.
  452 F.2d 673· 9th Cir.· 1971-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and denying a preliminary injunction, as the students' claims regarding free speech and due process were not moot and stated a valid cause of action.
• Miltenberger v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  450 F.2d 971· 4th Cir.· 1971-10-20 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court denied the application for an injunction pending appeal, finding no substantial prospect of success on appeal and significant practical impediments to preservation.
• Pegues v. Mrs. Louis K. Bakane & Art Rice Realty Co.
  445 F.2d 1140· 5th Cir.· 1971-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot because the property in question was sold to the plaintiffs, rendering the primary relief sought unavailable.
• Tyree v. Fitzpatrick
  445 F.2d 627· 1st Cir.· 1971-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prisoner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm necessary for interlocutory injunctive relief regarding prison conditions and mail censorship.
• City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Taxi, Inc.
  247 So. 2d 467· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-04-23 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The City of Fort Lauderdale appealed from a temporary injunction preventing it from interfering with Taxi, Inc.'s franchise agreement with Broward County to operate a taxicab service at the airport. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that Chapter 65-1003 validly
• Sydney E. Coon and Norma S. Coon v. Abner
  246 So. 2d 627· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-04-02 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court correctly denied a temporary injunction because an interlocutory appeal in a prior, concurrently filed suit divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
• Madry v. Sorel
  440 F.2d 1329· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the order denying summary judgment was not a final judgment and therefore not appealable, nor was it an appealable denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Businessmen Affected BY the Second Year Action Plan (Basyap) v. Dist. of Columbia Redev. Land Agency
  442 F.2d 883· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction but directed the district court to proceed expeditiously with discovery and a hearing on the merits.
• Atlanta & W. Point R.R. Co. & W. Ry. of Ala. v. United Transp. Union
  439 F.2d 73· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction against a union strike when the parties had not exhausted the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, despite the Norris-LaGuardia Act's limitations on injunctions.
• Morris v. Affleck
  437 F.2d 82· 1st Cir.· 1971-01-06 ·cited 4×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the district court dissolved the preliminary injunction, rendering the issue moot.
• United States v. Cent. Carolina Bank & Tr. Co.
  431 F.2d 972· 4th Cir.· 1970-10-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction to require desegregation of the golf facility.
• Karpinski v. Resor
  419 F.2d 531· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellant must exhaust administrative remedies by reporting for duty and undergoing a physical examination. The court also held that the statutory authority to extend active duty beyond enlistment for nat
• 601 W. 26 Corp. v. Solitron Devices, Inc.
  420 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1969-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Sanford Indus., Inc. v. Mohammad S. Jaghory & United Trussed Roofs Co., Inc.
  223 So. 2d 77· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's denial of a preliminary injunction was proper because the non-competition agreement was unreasonable as to area.
• Axelrod v. Stoltz
  391 F.2d 549· 3d Cir.· 1968-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under Section 102 of the LMRDA and properly granted a preliminary injunction.
• N. OIL Co., Inc. v. Socony Mobil OIL Co., Inc.
  368 F.2d 384· 2d Cir.· 1966-11-10 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, particularly regarding collateral estoppel and the exclusion of the contempt proceeding record.
• Wahyou v. Cent. Valley Nat'l Bank
  361 F.2d 755· 9th Cir.· 1966-04-22 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the appeal must be dismissed because the injunction's term had expired, rendering the issue moot.
• In re Fla. Rules OF Civil Procedure 1965 Revision
  178 So. 2d 15· Fla.· 1965-07-28 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  This is not a traditional case opinion but rather a Florida Supreme Court order approving comprehensive amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure effective January 1, 1966. The amendments substantially revise civil procedure rules, drawing from common law, equity, and Fe
• Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Volks City, Inc.
  348 F.2d 659· 3d Cir.· 1965-07-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction, and affirmed the order.
• United States v. Scarborough
  348 F.2d 174· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The trial court erred in dismissing the State of Alabama as a party and dissolving the injunction against it before final hearing.
• de Carlucci v. Granulite
  171 So. 2d 587· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-02-05 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  De Carlucci and others sought a permanent injunction against Granulite, Inc. for trademark infringement, alleging the defendant's name "Garnetlite" was confusingly similar to their name "Granulite." The trial court issued a temporary restraining order without notice and later ref
• Bette Poole v. Barnett
  336 F.2d 267· 5th Cir.· 1964-09-18 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction, as significant factual matters remain unresolved.
• Mrs. Ethel Mae Coxsey v. Najeeb Hallaby
  334 F.2d 286· 10th Cir.· 1964-07-17 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the suit was not against the United States without consent and presented genuine issues of material fact, thus it was not ripe for summary judgment.
• Muskegon Piston Ring Co., Inc. v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc.
  328 F.2d 830· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was warranted to maintain the status quo but modified its terms to allow more flexibility for the defendant's investment while awaiting trial.
• Sires v. The State OF Wash.
  314 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1963-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court cannot entertain an application for an injunction where there is no underlying cause of action over which it has primary jurisdiction.
• The Lakefront Dock & R.R. Terminal Co. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  333 F.2d 549· 6th Cir.· 1962-08-17 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the motion to suspend a preliminary injunction, finding no basis for the appellant's arguments regarding irreparable injury, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, or NLRB preemption.
• Cuneo v. Local NO. 825, Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO
  306 F.2d 394· 3d Cir.· 1962-07-02 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding reasonable cause to believe the union engaged in an unfair labor practice and did not abuse its discretion in issuing a temporary injunction.
• Highway Truck Drivers AND Helpers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  302 F.2d 897· D.C. Cir.· 1962-04-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Union's strike and actions constituted unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act, and enforced the NLRB's order.
• Farrell v. Danielson
  296 F.2d 39· 9th Cir.· 1961-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was invalid because it failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).
• Pa. Life Ins. Co. & United Ins. Co. of Am. v. Commercial Travelers Life & Accident Ins. Co.
  290 F.2d 226· 5th Cir.· 1961-05-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district judge erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, and by misinterpreting prior case law regarding restrictive covenants.
• Reiter v. Universal Marion Corp.
  273 F.2d 820· D.C. Cir.· 1959-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appeals were moot due to the New York settlement and vacated prior orders, allowing the District of Columbia suit to proceed without prejudice.
• Int'l Ladies Garment Workers Union v. Sherry Mfg. Co., Inc.
  115 So. 2d 27· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-10-15 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  A Florida appellate court reviewed a temporary injunction against a labor union for picketing. The court held that while a state court cannot enjoin peaceful picketing in interstate commerce, it may enjoin conduct involving violence, coercion, or molestation of employees.
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Union Local NO. 339 v. Creighton's Rest. Corp.
  115 So. 2d 30· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-10-07 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  A Florida appellate court upheld a temporary injunction against a union's picketing and strike activities at a non-interstate-commerce restaurant, but narrowed the injunction by striking overly broad provisions that prohibited inducing strikes and barred all entry onto the premis
• Hickok v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  265 F.2d 798· 6th Cir.· 1959-04-16 ·cited 4×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving a temporary injunction to allow parties to litigate complex accounting and property issues in state courts, consistent with principles of comity.
• Green v. Herschel S. Green and Madge Green
  233 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1956-05-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the issues raised by the defendants regarding jurisdiction and interference with federal court proceedings were without merit and previously adjudicated.
• Pierce v. Aeronautical Commc'ns Equip., Inc.
  223 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because serious issues of validity and infringement require a trial on the merits, and no irreparable injury or abuse of discretion was shown.