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

• Mem'l Health Sys., Inc. v. Halifax Hospice, Inc.
  689 So. 2d 373· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-02-26 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Memorial Health Systems appealed an order striking its motion to dissolve a temporary injunction that prevented the Agency for Health Care Administration from issuing MHS a hospice license. The court held that a license applicant not named as a party defendant has standing to mov
• THE Florida BAR v. Catalano
  685 So. 2d 1299· Fla.· 1996-12-26 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court disbarred attorney Robert J. Catalano based on reciprocal discipline stemming from his three-year suspension from the Massachusetts Bar. Catalano engaged in a pattern of serious ethical violations including misappropriating client funds, commingling fund
• Goslin v. Glenfed Brokerage Servs.
  683 So. 2d 620· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-11-22 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Goslin and PaineWebber appealed a trial court order confirming an arbitration award and denying damages for a wrongfully issued injunction. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by pre-emptively denying damages for wrongful injunction witho
• Hill v. Butterworth
  941 F. Supp. 1129· N.D. Fla.· 1996-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff has standing and the case is ripe for review, as the uncertainty surrounding the applicability of Chapter 154 of the Act to his habeas petition creates immediate hardship and a dilemma regarding compliance.
• Michel-Trapaga v. City of Gainesville
  907 F. Supp. 1508· N.D. Fla.· 1995-12-06 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the city's Event Policy, as applied, constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and assembly, and granted the preliminary injunction.
• Time Warner Cable v. Freedom Elecs., Inc.
  897 F. Supp. 1454· S.D. Fla.· 1995-08-11 ·cited 2×
  The court granted a preliminary injunction against defendants for violating the Communications Act by manufacturing and selling devices to illegally intercept cable television programming.
• Caterpillar, Inc. v. Nationwide Equip.
  877 F. Supp. 611· M.D. Fla.· 1994-11-14 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that defendants' advertising and sale of Cukurova products, manufactured using Caterpillar components but not under Caterpillar's direct quality control, constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act.
• Glen Raven Mills, Inc. v. Ramada Int'l, Inc.
  852 F. Supp. 1544· M.D. Fla.· 1994-05-24 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits for a preliminary injunction, as the evidence of actual confusion was insufficient and the defendant's intent to infringe was not proven, despite similarities in marks and a
• Consol. Pre-Stressed Concrete, Inc. v. Cnty. OF Volusia
  633 So. 2d 541· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-03-11 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the temporary injunction was improperly granted with respect to the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 88-3, as it was not an issue raised by the County.
• Rolling v. State
  630 So. 2d 635· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-01-06 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  A temporary injunction to secure a statutory lien on the proceeds of a crime is improper before a conviction, as the right to the lien is contingent upon that future event.
• Sasser Funeral Home, Inc. v. McCLELLAN
  627 So. 2d 1304· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-12-10 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Sasser Funeral Home appealed a partial temporary injunction order against former funeral home owners Charles and Barbara McClellan, who opened a competing business allegedly in violation of a non-competition clause. The court reversed and remanded, finding the key contractual ter
• Barberio-Powell v. Bernstein Leibstone Assocs., Inc.
  624 So. 2d 383· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-09-22 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a temporary injunction prohibiting a former employee from soliciting her former employer's customers, finding the employer failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary to justify such an injunction. The court held that
• City OF Homestead v. Ramirez
  621 So. 2d 548· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-07-13 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary injunction was defective because the order failed to specify the reasons for its entry as required by rule.
• Green River Bottling Co. v. Green River Corp. & Daniel J. Meyers
  997 F.2d 359· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Green River Corporation's unauthorized use of the 'Green River' trademark on a product not manufactured under the agreed-upon formula constituted trademark infringement and a breach of contract, and that the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction
• Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. M.C. McCOY
  995 F.2d 649· 6th Cir.· 1993-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the question of whether claims are time-barred under the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure is a matter for the courts to decide, not the arbitrators.
• Intel Corp. v. Ulsi Sys. Tech., Inc.
  995 F.2d 1566· Fed. Cir.· 1993-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The panel held that a broad cross-license agreement between companies effectively immunizes third parties from patent infringement claims related to the licensed patents.
• Alabau v. Town OF Lake Park
  617 So. 2d 872· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-05-12 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a permanent injunction cannot be entered without proper pleadings and notice of trial. The trial court also erred in entering a temporary injunction without notice.
• Leon v. Leon
  616 So. 2d 633· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-04-21 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary support order cannot be entered by incorporating a prior order from a dismissed action without a new hearing.
• LAC DU Flambeau Band OF Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, Inc.
  991 F.2d 1249· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-14 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the defendants' affidavits were sufficient to raise a dispute regarding whether race played a motivating part in their actions, requiring further inquiry.
• Lathrop v. Unidentified
  817 F. Supp. 953· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked in personam jurisdiction over the United States to issue an injunction against it because the United States had not been properly served as a party. The court also found that a salvor would likely not prevail on a salvage claim if they could not lawf
• Ark. Peace Ctr. v. Ark. Dep't OF Pollution Control & Ecology
  992 F.2d 145· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-02 ·cited 2×
  The court granted the defendants' motions for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction, finding they met the four-part test for such a stay.
• DOE v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist.
  986 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against school-sponsored prayer and affirmed the denial of intervention as modified.
• Feinstein v. Space Ventures, Inc.
  989 F.2d 49· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying a contract theory to a claim that sounded in common law duty of confidentiality, thus vacating the preliminary injunction.
• Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc.
  988 F.2d 61· 8th Cir.· 1993-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that new evidence of additional trademarks used by the defendant, not presented to the district court, warrants vacating the denial of a preliminary injunction and remanding for reconsideration.
• United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers OF Am. (UE). v. 163 Pleasant St. Corp.
  987 F.2d 39· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs made a sufficient prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the defendants under Massachusetts' long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause, requiring vacation of the dismissal order.
• Weaver v. Henderson
  984 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction against the Massachusetts State Police's 'no mustache' policy, as the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional challenge.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. & Guardians of Greater Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Flaherty
  983 F.2d 1267· 3d Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Commonwealth failed to prove intentional discrimination under the Davis standard, and therefore, permanent injunctive relief was properly denied, and the preliminary injunction was correctly dissolved.
• Cloud v. Sullivan
  984 F.2d 241· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeals are moot because the government has ceased testing the hepatitis A vaccine, and the case is not capable of repetition yet evading review.
• United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc.
  982 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-29 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the government failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Forbes v. Ark. Educ. Television Commc'n Network Found.
  982 F.2d 289· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The appeal concerning preliminary injunctive relief is moot because the underlying event has passed, rendering the grant or denial of such relief meaningless.
• Aswegan v. Henry
  981 F.2d 313· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-02 ·cited 2×
  Prisoners do not have a right to a specific means of access to the courts, and the ISP's policy does not deny them adequate access.
• Barnes v. Healy
  980 F.2d 572· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that due process requires specific information in child support notices, including the federally defined collection date and specific reasons for denying pass-through payments, and that such notice must extend to non-AFDC families.
• Computer Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc.
  982 F.2d 1063· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Computer Care's trade dress was inherently distinctive and likely to cause confusion, affirming the preliminary injunction on that claim, but reversed the injunction on trade secret claims, finding them not sufficiently secret.
• Clark v. K-Mart Corp.
  979 F.2d 965· 3d Cir.· 1992-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the preliminary injunction has been complied with and the plaintiff will not receive the treatment again, rendering both the injunction and bond issues moot.
• Thomas v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  978 F.2d 504· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the majority erred in reversing the preliminary injunction based on a de novo review of the facts and blurring the distinction between preliminary and permanent injunctions.
• Merrill Lynch v. King
  804 F. Supp. 1512· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-19 ·cited 2×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  A preliminary injunction should be granted to prevent arbitration outside the forums specified in the parties' agreement, as the agreement supersedes general arbitration rules and customer preference does not override contractual terms.
• Allstate Ins. v. Preston
  842 F. Supp. 1441· S.D. Fla.· 1992-10-09 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that while continued state court litigation after removal is improper, a federal court cannot enjoin such proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act unless an exception applies, and the relitigation exception does not apply to a dismissal without prejudice.
• Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott
  973 F.2d 507· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction and granted a preliminary injunction enforcing non-competition and confidentiality covenants, but erred in modifying the injunction based on an incorrect interpretation of Ohio law.
• qad. inc. v. ALN Assocs., Inc.
  974 F.2d 834· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction based on the plaintiff's misrepresentations, and that pendent appellate jurisdiction did not extend to reviewing the summary judgment ruling.
• Diamond v. Interstate Trading Corp.
  606 So. 2d 631· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-09-01 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this interlocutory appeal, defendants Diamond challenged a temporary injunction freezing their commercial bank account based on ITC's fraud and contract claims. The court reversed the injunction, holding that ITC failed to establish the essential elements of equitable relief—s
• Columbus-America Discovery Grp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co.
  974 F.2d 450· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's finding of abandonment was not clearly erroneous and that the law of finds, not salvage, should apply to long-lost wrecks.
• United States v. Local 560 (I.B.T.)
  974 F.2d 315· 3d Cir.· 1992-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in issuing a permanent injunction against Michael Sciarra, finding sufficient evidence of his continued ties to organized crime and obstruction of the union's corruption-free environment.
• Henderson v. Lane
  979 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clearly established right to more frequent showers or exercise, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. The denial of preliminary injunctive relief was also affirmed.
• Lakefield Tel. Co. v. N. Telecom, Inc.
  970 F.2d 386· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Lakefield failed to demonstrate a community of interest with Northern, thus not qualifying as a dealer under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, and affirmed the contempt finding against Northern for violating a preliminary injunction.
• Rock Creek Ltd. P'ship v. State Water Res. Control Bd.
  972 F.2d 274· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying attorneys fees solely on the lack of a causal link to the merits decision, as the pendency of the § 1983 action itself may have served as a catalyst for the Board's non-enforcement agreement.
• Kenelm Denison v. Denison
  603 So. 2d 115· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-08-05 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's modification of a temporary injunction issued in a divorce proceeding involving business disputes, holding that the trial court violated due process by ruling on the injunction without allowing appellants to present evi
• Weaver v. The Univ. OF Cincinnati
  970 F.2d 1523· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification because the plaintiffs' motivations were unclear and potentially divergent from other class members. The court also addressed the validity of fair share fee procedures and the indem
• Gold Coast Publ'ns, Inc. v. Corrigan
  798 F. Supp. 1558· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Coral Gables newsrack ordinance's provisions on rack color, lettering size, and the term 'equivalent' were unconstitutional prior restraints, but the rest of the ordinance was valid and severable.
• Black Hills Inst. OF Geological Research v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  967 F.2d 1237· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts have equitable jurisdiction to determine the temporary custodianship of seized property when the owner seeks return before criminal charges are filed, balancing the owner's need against the government's interest in retaining evidence.
• United Cerebral Palsy Ass'ns OF NEW York State, Inc. v. Cuomo
  966 F.2d 743· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a two-week delay in Medicaid reimbursement payments does not violate the Medicaid Act or the Constitution, as it does not constitute a change in payment rates or methods and remains within statutory time limits.