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

• Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  212 So. 2d 365· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-06-27 ·cited 52×·via Temporary Injunction
  Greyhound obtained a temporary injunction preventing competitor Tamiami Trail Tours from operating bus service on the Sunshine State Turnpike. The appellate court reversed, holding that the injunction improperly disturbed the status quo and that Greyhound failed to demonstrate ir
• Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth OIL Ref. Co., Inc.
  280 F.2d 915· 1st Cir.· 1960-06-16 ·cited 52×
  The court held that it would not consider new evidence on rehearing and denied the petition for rehearing, clarifying its prior decision regarding the scope of arbitration and the stay of proceedings.
• Miami Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Callander
  256 F.2d 410· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-17 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court's order granting broad injunctive relief and mandating a special shareholder meeting was improper, exceeding its equity powers and the scope of a preliminary injunction.
• Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Scoreboard Posters, Inc.
  600 F.2d 1184· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-20 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement, as the defendants' "parody" defense was not sufficiently developed on the limited record.
• Ring v. Spina
  166 F.2d 546· 2d Cir.· 1948-03-01 ·cited 51×·via Temporary Injunction
  A timely demand for a jury trial in an action under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act entitles the plaintiff to a jury trial for all triable issues, and an order striking the case from the jury calendar is appealable.
• Shatel Corp. v. MAO TA Lumber & Yacht Corp.
  697 F.2d 1352· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against Mao Ta for trademark infringement and unfair competition, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and no reversible error in the application of equit
• Buffalo Courier-Express, Inc. v. Buffalo Evening News, Inc.
  601 F.2d 48· 2d Cir.· 1979-04-16 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show a clear probability of success on the merits for an attempt to monopolize claim, as the defendant's actions did not demonstrate specific intent or predatory cond
• Squillacote v. Local 248
  534 F.2d 735· 7th Cir.· 1976-04-13 ·cited 50×
  Federal district courts have the power to grant temporary restraining orders under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), and the notice provided was sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the temporary restraining
• Drew v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  480 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-04 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the 1972 amendments to Title VII did not eliminate an individual employee's right to seek temporary injunctive relief pending EEOC action, and that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was error.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. v. O'Neill
  473 F.2d 1029· 3d Cir.· 1973-02-08 ·cited 50×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction regarding hiring procedures due to an equally divided court, but vacated the promotion quota due to insufficient statistical evidence.
• The Fort Worth Nat'l Corp. v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.
  469 F.2d 47· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-12 ·cited 50×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction when a statutory review procedure in the Court of Appeals was available and adequate. The FSLIC's disapproval of FWN's acquisition was proper under the National Housing Act's anticompetitive provisions.
• Automatic Radio MFG. Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  390 F.2d 113· 1st Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a compelling case of immediate irreparable injury, which is necessary for granting a preliminary injunction.
• Dino DeLAURENTIIS Cinemato-Grafica v. D-150, Inc.
  366 F.2d 373· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-16 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the movant made a sufficient showing of probable success and possible irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction, reversing the district court's denial.
• PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Eng'rs' Int'l Ass'n, PAA Chapter, AFL-CIO
  306 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-25 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the flight engineers' strike was not permissible because the "crew complement" and "representation" issues had not been subjected to the required procedures under the Railway Labor Act.
• Wolfgang Bellach v. Huggs OF Naples, Inc.
  704 So. 2d 679· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-12-17 ·cited 49×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this appeal, the court reversed a trial court's temporary injunction against a former owner of a retail gift shop for violating a covenant not to compete. The injunction was defective because it failed to include a required bond and lacked necessary findings of fact regarding
• Luce v. Edelstein
  802 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 49×
  The court held that while some fraud allegations were insufficiently pleaded, others, particularly those concerning specific broken promises in the Offering Memorandum, stated a claim under Section 10(b). The court also found that dismissal without leave to amend was an abuse of
• Publicker Indus., Inc. v. David Cohen. Appeal of Philadelphia Newspapers
  733 F.2d 1059· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 49×
  The First Amendment secures a right of access to civil proceedings for the public and the press, and the district court erred in closing the hearing and sealing the transcript without adequate justification.
• Evans v. Buchanan
  555 F.2d 373· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 49×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the majority's order is unclear and that the case should be remanded to resolve critical issues regarding interdistrict violations and their effects.
• Thomas v. Evans
  880 F.2d 1235· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 48×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions because the record was insufficient to support findings of no reasonable legal or factual basis for the claims, and the improper purpose finding was dependent on those flawed conclusions.
• Dollar Rent A CAR OF Wash., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  774 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction and in holding Travelers in civil contempt because Dollar and Viking failed to demonstrate irreparable injury or a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the contempt order was based on i
• Mobil Corp. v. Marathon OIL Co.
  669 F.2d 366· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-23 ·cited 48×
  The court held that Mobil's Williams Act claim is moot because the antitrust case ruling makes it legally impossible for Mobil to make a tender offer, which is a prerequisite for asserting such a claim.
• Thompson v. Kerr-McGEE Ref. Corp.
  660 F.2d 1380· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-24 ·cited 48×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the notice and summary statement provisions of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act must be strictly complied with, and that the franchisee has a right to a jury trial for actual damages. The district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating a dismissal
• The Cont'l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  614 F.2d 351· 3d Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the risk of inadvertent disclosure alone is insufficient to justify a preliminary injunction against employment, and that the non-competition covenant did not cover Grovijohn's role as a plant manager in manufacturing bottles.
• Lever Bros. Co. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union
  554 F.2d 115· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-30 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the dispute was arbitrable, the preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending arbitration was properly issued, and the injunction bond was correctly conditioned on the wrongful issuance of the injunction r
• Stateside Mach. Co., Ltd. v. Alperin
  526 F.2d 480· 3d Cir.· 1975-12-01 ·cited 48×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because it does not cause irreparable harm, and a stay of a hybrid legal/equitable action is also not appealable.
• Wallace v. Lynn
  507 F.2d 1186· D.C. Cir.· 1974-12-04 ·cited 48×
  The court held that federal employees must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief for employment disputes, even when constitutional claims are raised.
• Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of Am.
  466 F.2d 424· D.C. Cir.· 1972-08-03 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying attorney's fees, as the lawsuits conferred substantial benefits on the union and its members, and federal courts possess inherent equitable power to award fees in such circumstances.
• The W. Va. Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co.
  441 F.2d 232· 4th Cir.· 1971-04-06 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the Conservancy has standing to sue and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Sierra Club v. Hickel
  433 F.2d 24· 9th Cir.· 1970-09-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the granting of a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion and must be reversed, despite the plaintiff having standing.
• Joshua Meier Co., Inc. v. Albany Novelty Mfg. Co.
  236 F.2d 144· 2d Cir.· 1956-07-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement due to strong evidence of copying, but not for trademark infringement or unfair competition claims where substantial doubt existed.
• Mora v. Mejias
  206 F.2d 377· 1st Cir.· 1953-07-24 ·cited 48×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction because the plaintiff had not shown with reasonable certainty that he would ultimately prevail.
• Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  860 F.2d 1022· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-28 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the appeal was not moot because the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception applied, allowing review of the "temporary restraining order" despite the appellant's compliance.
• United States v. Thier
  801 F.2d 1463· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-10 ·cited 47×
  The court should require the district court to allow defendants access to funds for defense and living expenses unless the government shows a compelling reason.
• N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Carbon Cnty. Coal Co.
  799 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance, and the contract was not rendered unenforceable by a potential violation of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act.
• Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc.
  797 F.2d 1222· 3d Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the structure and organization of a computer program are protectible by copyright, not just the literal code, and that substantial similarity in structure can constitute infringement.
• Omega Satellite Prods. Co. v. City OF Indianapolis
  694 F.2d 119· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-23 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient probability of prevailing on its Sherman Act claim to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• Fernandez-Roque v. Smith
  671 F.2d 426· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 47×
• Harlequin Enters. Ltd. v. Gulf & W. Corp.
  644 F.2d 946· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the defendant's "Silhouette Romance" cover design infringed upon the plaintiff's "Harlequin Presents" cover design under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act due to substantial similarity and secondary meaning, and that laches did
• Marcera v. Chinlund
  595 F.2d 1231· 2d Cir.· 1979-02-27 ·cited 47×
  The dissenting judge argues that the court should not mandate a statewide 'contact' visitation program for jails without clearly defining the constitutional right involved and considering the significant costs and administrative burdens.
• Merrell-National Labs., Inc. v. Zenith Labs., Inc.
  579 F.2d 786· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-13 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the appeal from the original preliminary injunction was untimely, but the denial of the motion for redetermination of that injunction was appealable. The court affirmed the denial of the redetermination motion, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Taylor Wine Co., Inc. v. Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc.
  569 F.2d 731· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-03 ·cited 47×
  The court held that while an injunction was necessary to prevent confusion, the district court's order was too broad by prohibiting all use of the surname 'Taylor'.
• Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp.
  558 F.2d 1090· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-12 ·cited 47×
  The court held that color is an element of a copyrighted textile design and that certain of the defendant's fabrics were substantially similar, while others were not.
• The Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen
  544 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1976-11-01 ·cited 47×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction exists and that the district court properly granted a preliminary injunction to a Canadian bankruptcy trustee seeking corporate records in New York.
• Friends OF THE Earth, Inc. v. Coleman
  518 F.2d 323· 9th Cir.· 1975-05-28 ·cited 47×
  The court held that state-funded airport expansion projects, even if part of a larger plan with federally funded components, are not subject to NEPA's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirement unless they constitute 'federal action' or are so interwoven with federal projec
• Chelsea Neighborhood Ass'ns v. United States Postal Serv. & E. T. Klassen
  516 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-30 ·cited 47×
  The Postal Service is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the VMF-housing project was inadequate.
• Di Giorgio v. Causey
  488 F.2d 527· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 47×
  The court held that expunging a final state court judgment via a preliminary injunction is an abuse of discretion, but other aspects of the preliminary injunction were not.
• B. L. E. Realty Corp. v. Mary Williams Co., Inc.
  101 Fla. 254· Fla.· 1931-04-20 ·cited 47×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's decision to grant a temporary injunction and deny a motion to dissolve it. The court found the underlying creditor's bill lacked equity because the plaintiff had not obtained a judgment at law and the suit did not meet statutory requir
• Walling v. The Christian & Craft Grocery Co.
  41 Fla. 479· Fla.· 1899-06-01 ·cited 47×·via Temporary Injunction
  Mrs. R. A. Walling sought to rely on an Alabama decree that made her a free dealer to defend against an equity suit in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court held that a married woman's status acquired under another state's law does not follow her to a new domicile and cannot be used
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Cosmair, Inc.
  821 F.2d 1085· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 46×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that stopping severance pay after an employee filed an ADEA charge constituted unlawful retaliation, and that a waiver of the right to file such a charge is void as against public policy.
• Frisch's Rests., Inc. v. Elby's BIG BOY OF Steubenville, Inc.
  670 F.2d 642· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-03 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Elby's television advertising created a likelihood of confusion regarding its Ohio restaurants' affiliation with the Big Boy trademark, warranting injunctive relief under the Lanham Act. However, the court found the district court erred in not applying the sam