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

• Hardwick v. Cuomo
  891 F.2d 1097· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal court jurisdiction over challenges to state taxes when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and New York provides such a remedy for the challenged tax.
• William G. Wilcox, D.O. v. United States
  888 F.2d 1111· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the law of the case doctrine to a summary judgment motion after denying a preliminary injunction, and that the sale of the 1935 Auburn was void under Michigan law because the seller failed to endorse and deliver the certifi
• Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Amgen, Inc.
  887 F.2d 460· 3d Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain Ortho's motion to modify the preliminary injunction and that the appeal was timely, but that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in denying the motion.
• Dunwoody Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. DeKALB Cnty.
  887 F.2d 1455· 11th Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the litigation had not resulted in an immediately enforceable state court judgment, and private parties invoking state procedures are not state actors without more.
• Cinema Blue OF Charlotte v. Gilchrist
  887 F.2d 49· 4th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts must abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings unless there's a clear showing that the state proceeding won't adequately protect constitutional rights.
• Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. The United States
  884 F.2d 556· Fed. Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The Court of International Trade did not err in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring Commerce to obtain court authorization before altering final antidumping duty results under judicial review.
• Cotter v. Desert Palace, Inc.
  880 F.2d 1142· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a significant possibility of irreparable injury or a fair chance of success on the merits.
• Leesburg Humane Soc'y, Inc. v. Kauffman
  546 So. 2d 1161· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-07-27 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Leesburg Humane Society appealed a temporary injunction that halted all improvements to its property while setback zoning variances were litigated. The court affirmed the injunction's entry as meeting legal criteria but found it overbroad, requiring modification to permit law
• Ecolab, Inc. v. Morisette
  879 F.2d 325· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court reasonably concluded the covenant not to compete was unenforceable under Nebraska law, but erred in dismissing the entire complaint without addressing remaining claims.
• J. Sternberg, S. Schulman & Assocs., M.D., P.A. v. Hosp. Corp. OF Am.
  571 So. 2d 1334· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-06-21 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Radiologists appealed a trial court's denial of a temporary injunction seeking to prevent a hospital from restricting their services after the hospital conducted a competitive bidding process for radiologist services and awarded the contract to another group. The appellate court
• Kramer v. Mosbacher
  878 F.2d 134· 4th Cir.· 1989-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint and lacked authority to grant injunctive relief because the challenge to the regulation was untimely and the Magnuson Act prohibits injunctions pending review.
• Greenwood v. City OF Delray Beach
  543 So. 2d 451· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-05-24 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, lack of an adequate remedy at law, or a clear legal right to relief, particularly given the significant delay in challe
• People OF the State OF Ill. v. Peters
  871 F.2d 1336· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to dissolve the injunction and vacate the receivership, the injunction and receivership were overbroad as they extended to assets not connected to the alleged illegal activity.
• United States v. Ayer
  866 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 2×
  A contempt order imposing a definite, unconditional prison term without a purge mechanism is criminal in nature, requiring adherence to criminal procedural safeguards.
• Rowley v. Members OF THE Bd. OF Educ. OF the ST. Vrain Valley Sch. Dist. RE-1J
  863 F.2d 39· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-13 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the trial court erred by applying a test more stringent than intermediate scrutiny when evaluating the plaintiff's equal protection claim.
• Jacksonville Clergy Consultation Serv., Inc. v. Martinez
  696 F. Supp. 1445· M.D. Fla.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Florida Statute § 390.001(4) as amended is constitutionally insufficient because its judicial bypass procedure lacks specificity regarding anonymity, confidentiality, and expedition, failing to meet constitutional standards.
• A.J. Canfield Co. v. Vess Beverages, Inc.
  859 F.2d 36· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that collateral estoppel applies, preventing Canfield from relitigating the genericness of 'chocolate fudge' for diet soda, as prior decisions in other circuits conclusively determined the term to be generic.
• White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Smith Plumbing Co., Inc.
  856 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against a state court proceeding, as the state court had jurisdiction over the surety and the injunction improperly anticipated future disputes and infringed on federal policy.
• Black Ass'n OF NEW Orleans Fire Fighters (Banoff) v. The City OF NEW Orleans
  853 F.2d 347· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union had standing to challenge the district court's order and that the order was injunctive in nature, not a consent decree. The court reversed the denial of the union's motion to vacate and remanded for a hearing.
• Chisom v. Buddy Roemer
  850 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The panel majority erred in partially lifting the district court's stay, allowing the candidate qualification period to proceed despite evidence of minority vote dilution.
• Clark Mershon v. Kyser
  852 F.2d 335· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the allegations of bad-faith prosecution were insufficient to overcome the Younger abstention doctrine.
• Lewellen v. Raff
  851 F.2d 1108· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that its prior affirmance of a preliminary injunction against a state criminal trial was proper, even without a definitive finding on the likelihood of conviction, because a finding of retaliatory prosecution was sufficient for preliminary relief.
• Perales v. Meese
  847 F.2d 55· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the appellants' arguments unpersuasive.
• Simpson v. Simpson
  524 So. 2d 1124· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-05-12 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the ex-wife's Count III was insufficient to state a cause of action for injunctive relief and that the trial court erred in granting such relief without proper notice, hearing, or bond.
• Habetz v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n & Dr. Thomas G. Clausen
  842 F.2d 136· 5th Cir.· 1988-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case was moot because the LHSAA voluntarily amended its by-laws to allow female participation in sports lacking a girls' equivalent, rendering the original controversy moot.
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.
  842 F.2d 206· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 2×
• Moretrench Am. Corp. v. S.J. Groves & Sons Co.
  839 F.2d 1284· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 2×
  A stay order in a suit at law, granted to enforce a contractual condition precedent requiring resolution of disputes in another forum, is not immediately appealable under the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, as it is not based on an equitable claim or defense.
• Ebsco Indus., Inc. v. Lilly
  840 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 2×
  A preliminary injunction may be granted to preserve assets if the legal remedy of attachment under Rule 64 is demonstrably inadequate, even if attachment is generally available.
• People's Tel. Co. v. Sunshine Payphones, Inc.
  519 So. 2d 690· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-02-03 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  People's Telephone Company appealed an order granting a temporary injunction requiring return of four telephones and twenty-eight keys to Sunshine Payphones without posting the bond required by Florida's replevin statute. The court reversed the injunction as to the telephones but
• Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co.
  835 F.2d 128· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the extraordinary relief was not warranted under the circumstances.
• Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.
  835 F.2d 859· Fed. Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, finding that Cordis had a reasonable apprehension of patent infringement suit and that the injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo pending litigation.
• Chalk v. United States Dist. Court Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  832 F.2d 1158· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-18 ·cited 2×
• Accion Soc. de Puerto RICO, Inc. v. Norberto Viera Perez
  831 F.2d 365· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by deciding the issue of whether ASPRI was a community action agency before the administrative remedies provided under the Act were exhausted. The court vacated the district court's orders for violating the doctrine of exhaustion of ad
• Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Sys. Council U-4 v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  678 F. Supp. 257· S.D. Fla.· 1987-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was appropriate to preserve the arbitration process and prevent irreparable harm, outweighing the harm to the employer from a temporary delay in implementing a drug testing program.
• Bancroft Convertible Fund, Inc. v. Zico Inv. Holdings Inc.
  825 F.2d 731· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there is an implied private cause of action for enforcement of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and that the district court did not err in finding a likelihood that Zico's tender offer would violate the Act.
• Gaston Drugs, Inc. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  823 F.2d 984· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong probability of success on the merits regarding their claims that audits and overpayment demands violated an Ohio statute o
• Zenith Radio Corp. v. The United States
  823 F.2d 518· Fed. Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Court of International Trade did not abuse its discretion in denying the government's motion for assessment of damages on an injunction bond, primarily due to a subsequent jurisdictional ruling that prevented Zenith from litigating its bad faith claim.
• McARTHUR v. Firestone
  817 F.2d 1548· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as moot because pending enforcement proceedings mean the case is not moot, and the denial of a temporary restraining order is not a decision on the merits.
• Barr v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  819 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to make a substantial showing that his rights were violated by the asset freeze, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Rahaim v. City OF Jacksonville
  504 So. 2d 1323· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-03-18 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Thomas Rahaim challenged a temporary injunction issued by Jacksonville enjoining him from obstructing a natural drainageway. The court reversed, holding that the city failed to prove an essential element of its ordinance violation because the notice of obstruction was not given b
• Ne. Women's Ctr., Inc. v. McMONAGLE
  813 F.2d 53· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific factual findings required by F.R.Civ.P. 52(a) when denying a preliminary injunction.
• W. Indian Co., Ltd. v. Gov't OF the Virgin Islands
  812 F.2d 134· 3d Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Black Hills Power & Light Co. v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  808 F.2d 665· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 2×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that Ellsworth Air Force Base is a federal enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, and federal procurement law does not require federal officials to follow state utility franchise laws when procuring electricity.
• Hastings-Murtagh v. Tex. Air Corp.
  649 F. Supp. 479· S.D. Fla.· 1986-11-24 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the threatened injury to plaintiffs outweighed the harm to the defendant.
• Anthony v. Texaco, Inc.
  803 F.2d 593· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction to freeze funds under ERISA, as it was a valid exercise of equitable jurisdiction and not subject to strict prejudgment attachment standards.
• Agee Agric. Equip. Sales v. Trail King Indus.
  800 F.2d 789· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 2×
  The court remanded the case because the district court's findings were inadequate to review all issues, particularly those concerning franchise law and other claims beyond breach of contract notice provisions.
• Bell Labs., Inc. v. Colonial Prods., Inc.
  644 F. Supp. 542· S.D. Fla.· 1986-07-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for its trademark infringement and anti-dilution claims, thus denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Bunch v. Hodel
  793 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the drawdown constituted a major federal action requiring an environmental impact statement under NEPA because the 1941 lease granted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exclusive control over the spillway, and the State's action was a substantial change to an
• Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Hester
  801 F.2d 405· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's decision to capture the remaining wild California condors was a reasoned exercise of discretion, adequately explained, and not arbitrary or capricious.
• United States v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'n
  791 F.2d 831· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction against School Board elections, as the prior appellate decision did not resolve the Section 2 Voting Rights Act claim.