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

• Waler v. Lovett
  905 So. 2d 972· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-06-24 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  Catherine Louise Waler sought an injunction for protection against dating violence under Florida law. The trial court dismissed her petition after an ex parte hearing, but the appellate court reversed, finding Waler's allegations sufficient to warrant a temporary injunction and a
• In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
  352 F. Supp. 2d 1279· S.D. Fla.· 2005-01-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the exclusionary effects of the Abbott-Geneva Agreement exceeded the exclusionary potential of the '207 patent, rendering the agreement a per se violation of Section One of the Sherman Act.
• Friedman v. Snipes
  345 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2004-11-09 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims regarding absentee ballot delivery and counting.
• In re Managed Care Litigation
  236 F. Supp. 2d 1336· S.D. Fla.· 2002-12-12 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it has the authority under the All Writs Act to enjoin CIGNA from proceeding with a settlement in another federal court that threatens the jurisdiction and integrity of this multidistrict litigation.
• Jefferies & Co., Inc. v. Int'l Assets Holding Corp.
  830 So. 2d 256· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-11-15 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish the likelihood of irreparable injury and the lack of an adequate remedy at law.
• Mony Sec. Corp. v. Vasquez
  238 F. Supp. 2d 1304· M.D. Fla.· 2002-08-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted because the defendants were not customers of the plaintiff under NASD rules, thus no agreement to arbitrate existed. Compelling arbitration without an agreement constitutes irreparable harm.
• Morris Commc'ns Corp. v. PGA Tour, Inc.
  117 F. Supp. 2d 1322· M.D. Fla.· 2000-10-23 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, thus denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• The Glades Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Harry R. Prentiss and wife
  768 So. 2d 1245· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-10-12 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction sought by a homeowners association to prevent homeowners from using lap siding, finding the association failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or lack of adequate legal remedy.
• Loggerhead Turtle v. Cnty. Counc.
  120 F. Supp. 2d 1005· M.D. Fla.· 2000-05-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the federal Defendant (Secretary of the Interior) is entitled to summary judgment because its decision to issue an Incidental Take Permit was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Miami Light Project v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  97 F. Supp. 2d 1174· S.D. Fla.· 2000-05-16 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a preliminary injunction is warranted as to portions of the Cuba Affidavit related to Resolution R-202-96, finding a substantial likelihood of unconstitutionality under foreign affairs, commerce, and preemption doctrines.
• Loggerhead Turtle v. Cnty. Council of Volusia Cnty.
  92 F. Supp. 2d 1296· M.D. Fla.· 2000-03-24 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that Volusia County's current artificial beachfront lighting ordinance does not violate the Endangered Species Act, and therefore, the county is entitled to summary judgment on claims related to lighting.
• Pescod v. Wells Rd. Veterinary Med. Ctr., Inc.
  748 So. 2d 1095· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-01-19 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  Appellants sought to conduct demonstrations outside a veterinary center to gather discovery evidence for their battery lawsuit defense, but the trial court issued a protective order prohibiting demonstrations within 300 yards of the facility. The appellate court dismissed the app
• Sears Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arnold
  743 So. 2d 597· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-10-06 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
• Heck v. Heck
  714 So. 2d 1200· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-08-05 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  Frederick Heck appeals a temporary injunction entered against him based on allegations of elder abuse and financial improprieties by his mother, Victoria Heck. The court affirms the injunction while dismissing the portion of the appeal concerning financial awards as outside its j
• Am. Residential Servs., Inc. v. Event Tech. Servs., Inc.
  715 So. 2d 1048· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-07-29 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  American Residential Services and David Prince appealed a temporary injunction enforcing a non-competition agreement. The Florida appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that the trial court properly applied the applicable non-competition statute and that the record supp
• Palma Plaza Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Cummings & Lockwood
  706 So. 2d 1376· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-02-25 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
• Smith v. Bateman Graham, P.A.
  680 So. 2d 497· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-04-19 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed an ex parte injunction prohibiting attorney J. Layne Smith from contacting clients of his former law firm employer, holding that the former employer lacked standing to enforce violations of Florida Bar ethics rules through priva
• Doe v. Jud. Nominating Comm'n for the Fifteenth Jud. Cir. of Fla.
  906 F. Supp. 1534· S.D. Fla.· 1995-11-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Judicial Nominating Commission's (JNC) questions concerning physical and mental health are overinclusive and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
• Dickerson v. Stuart
  877 F. Supp. 1556· M.D. Fla.· 1995-02-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Florida's Midwifery Practice Act is constitutional, not violating free exercise of religion, free speech, or being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
• Francine S. Schiller v. Miller
  621 So. 2d 481· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-05-26 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  This case involves an appeal of a temporary restraining order enjoining the appellant from disposing of four pieces of jewelry and limiting the appellee's bond. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding the jewelry to be unique and the appellee to have no adequate remedy at
• MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.
  991 F.2d 511· 9th Cir.· 1993-04-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that loading MAI software into RAM constitutes copyright infringement and that soliciting MAI customers using information from MAI's customer database constitutes trade secret misappropriation.
• Tools v. Int'l Tool Supply
  984 F.2d 113· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 3×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court correctly determined that the dispute over the duration of the option agreement was for the court, not an arbitrator, to decide, and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying interim injunctive relief.
• Basham v. Freda
  805 F. Supp. 930· M.D. Fla.· 1992-09-18 ·cited 3×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, despite meeting other criteria.
• Polymer Tech. Corp. v. Emile Mimran
  975 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the sale of products by a distributor.
• Guess v. The Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs OF the State OF N.C.
  967 F.2d 998· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-25 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that Guess's federal claims were barred by res judicata and the principles of District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, and the patients' derivative claims were moot due to lack of jurisdiction over Guess's case.
• Geneva Assurance Syndicate v. Med. Emergency Servs. Assocs. (Mesa) S.C.
  964 F.2d 599· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-11 ·cited 3×
  A temporary restraining order, even if labeled as such and extended by agreement, is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Fred Davidowitz, D.D.S. v. DELTA Dental Plan OF Cal., Inc.
  946 F.2d 1476· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-28 ·cited 3×
  ERISA does not affirmatively mandate assignability of welfare benefit plan payments when the plan expressly prohibits such assignments.
• Borey v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh
  934 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-29 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improvidently granted because the surety failed to establish irreparable harm solely from the loss of its quia timet and exoneration rights.
• WE Care, Inc. v. Ultra-Mark Int'l Corp.
  930 F.2d 1567· Fed. Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred by not adequately considering whether the range of equivalents sought for the patent would ensnare prior art, requiring vacation of the preliminary injunction.
• Charles v. Abate, Jr.
  928 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 3×
  The Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and its implementing regulations do not afford railroad employees an implied private right of action to enforce drug-testing rules or recover damages for violations.
• Home-Stake Prod. Co. v. Talon Petroleum
  907 F.2d 1012· 10th Cir.· 1990-07-09 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in asserting personal jurisdiction over Valdes-Fauli and the corporate defendants, but that jurisdiction over Rafael Tudela was likely proper based on his use of judgment debtors as instrumentalities. The preliminary injunction was dis
• Pino v. Spanish Broad. Sys. OF Fla., Inc.
  564 So. 2d 186· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-06-26 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
  Florida appellate court affirmed a temporary injunction enforcing a covenant not to compete against a radio announcer whose employment contract was assigned to a successor employer. The court held that covenants not to compete in employment contracts are assignable business asset
• Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Manges
  900 F.2d 795· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that while the district court had the power to issue an injunction to enforce the venue provision, the orders failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).
• AIR Line Pilots Ass'n v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
  898 F.2d 1393· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the classification of a labor dispute as "minor" under the Railway Labor Act is a jurisdictional issue, not a decision on the merits, and the district court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the employer's actions.
• Movie & Video World, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  723 F. Supp. 695· S.D. Fla.· 1989-10-11 ·cited 3×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Palm Beach County Ordinance 88-31, requiring the removal of doors from adult video booths, is a constitutional time, place, and manner regulation that does not violate the First Amendment, and that certain disclosure requirements within the ordinance were unco
• Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Post Off. Mail Handlers
  880 F.2d 1388· D.C. Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Title III of the LMRDA does not authorize federal courts to enjoin a union from holding a pre-trusteeship hearing, as such a hearing is an internal proceeding distinct from the establishment of a trusteeship itself. The court also vacated prior rulings as moot
• Commc'ns Sys., Inc. v. City OF Danville
  880 F.2d 887· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants, as there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the city's franchise award process and CSI's claims lacked merit.
• Nassau Boulevard Shell Serv. Station, Inc. v. Shell OIL Co.
  875 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Shell's notice of termination was timely under the PMPA because the 120-day clock began when Shell acquired actual knowledge of the grounds for termination, not merely upon hearing an allegation. The court also affirmed the denial of the franchisee's prelimina
• Frederic D. Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  871 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Corps' regulations, limiting NEPA analysis scope to federally controlled or responsible portions of a project, are a permissible interpretation of the NEPA and entitled to deference.
• Fresh Western Marketing v. M & L Food Ctr., Inc.
  707 F. Supp. 515· S.D. Fla.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a federal district court should not require a buyer to establish a trust bank account to enforce a seller's right to payment out of a statutory trust, absent evidence of dissipation.
• Republic of Panama v. Air Panama Internacional, S.A.
  745 F. Supp. 669· S.D. Fla.· 1988-06-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the recognized government of Panama, not the unrecognized Noriega/Palma regime, is entitled to control Air Panama's assets in the United States, and denied intervention by counsel for the unrecognized regime.
• Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Campagna PER LE Farmacie IN Italia S.P.A. & Cosprophar, Inc.
  847 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits due to a serious question of likelihood of confusion.
• Republic of Panama v. Citizens & S. Int'l Bank
  682 F. Supp. 1544· S.D. Fla.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 3×
  The court denied motions to intervene by Banco Nacional de Panama and the Palma government, and granted a preliminary injunction against the transfer of funds held by Panamanian government entities, based on the political question doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 632.
• Mitson v. Coler
  670 F. Supp. 1568· S.D. Fla.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Veterans Administration Improved Pensions (VAIP) awarded pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 503(a)(8) as reimbursement for medical expenses should not be counted as income for determining eligibility for Florida's Medicaid Institutional Care Payments (ICP) Program.
• Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Warner
  665 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1987-07-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by filing a prior state court action, and thus denied the motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction.
• Neurological Associates-H. Hooshmand, M.D., P.A. v. Bowen
  658 F. Supp. 468· S.D. Fla.· 1987-03-17 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity and that plaintiffs were not entitled to an immediate hearing under either statutory or constitutional grounds when payments were temporarily withheld due to suspected fraud. The court also denied
• Fraternal Order OF Police v. Odio
  491 So. 2d 339· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-07-22 ·cited 3×·via Temporary Injunction
• Williams v. Salerno
  792 F.2d 323· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction preventing the Board of Elections from denying voter registration to students based on their dormitory residence, as the Board's actions violated New York election law and the
• Toraki Matsumoto v. PUA
  775 F.2d 1393· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-12 ·cited 3×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the two-year disqualification provision of the Honolulu City Charter is likely unconstitutional and reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Buckingham Corp. v. Karp
  762 F.2d 257· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a revised preliminary injunction could be entered to prevent Karp from continuing business relationships and disclosing confidential information.