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

• Moore v. Curtis 1000, Inc.
  640 F.2d 920· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the restrictive covenant was likely unenforceable under Georgia law due to an overly broad subparagraph and Georgia's rejection of the 'blue-pencil theory'.
• Goforth v. Poythress
  638 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 2×
  A state statute requiring sheriffs to possess a high school diploma or its equivalent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Mrs. Donna Darr and Captain Charles E. Darr v. Carter
  640 F.2d 163· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a party must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention, as premature interference with the administrative process is improper.
• Goadby v. Philadelphia Elec. Co.
  639 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should not have been granted because the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law through monetary damages in the state court system.
• Chart House, Inc. v. Bornstein
  636 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to a preliminary injunction as a matter of law, reversing the denial.
• Diaz v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Dade Cnty.
  502 F. Supp. 190· S.D. Fla.· 1980-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction to prevent a referendum vote on a proposed ordinance is not warranted because the ordinance is not facially unconstitutional and the issue of its constitutionality is not ripe for adjudication.
• McDERMOTT Inc. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
  649 F.2d 489· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an increase in the number of shares sought in a tender offer does not constitute a new offer requiring a full extension of the offer period under the Williams Act and SEC regulations.
• Nat'l Indian Youth Council v. Andrus
  623 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court dissolved the temporary injunction pending appeal, finding that the balance of harms and public interest favored allowing the coal mining operations to proceed.
• Aladdin Hotel Corp. v. Nev. Gaming Comm'n
  637 F.2d 582· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the preliminary injunction was improperly granted due to overbreadth, the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and should instead be remanded for consideration of appropriate procedural relief.
• Waller Bros. Stone Co. v. United Steelworkers OF Am.
  620 F.2d 132· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union's express reservation of the right to strike over wage rates, as interpreted in the context of the entire collective bargaining agreement, precluded the issuance of a preliminary injunction under the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act
• Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant v. Dep't OF Energy
  620 F.2d 896· C.C.P.A.· 1980-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction must be dismissed because the order was interlocutory and the appellant failed to obtain the necessary certification for appeal.
• Baker v. Sch. Bd. of Marion Cnty.
  487 F. Supp. 380· M.D. Fla.· 1980-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, thus denying their application for a preliminary injunction.
• Tri-Plaza Corp. & Don T. Davis v. Field
  382 So. 2d 330· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-01-23 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Tri-Plaza Corporation and Don T. Davis appealed a trial court order granting a temporary mandatory injunction that appointed a trustee to manage promissory note payments in a real estate dispute. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court abused its dis
• WOE v. Neb. State Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  598 F.2d 1146· 8th Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court granted a stay of execution of a preliminary injunction pending appeal and expedited the appeal.
• SAN Juan Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Asociacion de Jinetes de Puerto RICO, Inc.
  590 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1979-01-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that jockeys' collective refusal to race to increase compensation constituted an illegal effort to control prices through concerted action, and thus affirmed the preliminary injunction.
• Major Angelo M. Diliberti v. Brown
  583 F.2d 950· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 2×
  Judicial relief was premature because the plaintiff can obtain adequate relief through the administrative process.
• Kaynard v. Local 282
  576 F.2d 471· 2d Cir.· 1978-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union's strike and picketing against the general contractor constituted an illegal secondary boycott, and the district court improperly assigned work, which is the exclusive province of the NLRB.
• Isiah Fredericks v. Kreps
  571 F.2d 1316· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 2×
• Joanne Chesimard (Assata Shakur) v. Mulcahy
  570 F.2d 1184· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• NEW York Ass'n OF Homes FOR Aging v. Toia
  559 F.2d 876· 2d Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The appeals are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court's orders denying class-based preliminary injunctive relief are not appealable interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. v. Congoleum Corp.
  554 F.2d 1283· 4th Cir.· 1977-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in concluding that a tender offer would likely result in only a minimal stock transfer, and remanded for consideration of the merits.
• Barrett v. Emmett Roberts
  551 F.2d 662· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-02 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that a temporary delay in AFDC benefit checks due to administrative procedures, while inconvenient, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the Social Security Act, and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief.
• Groves v. McLUCAS
  552 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying back pay and attorney's fees in a preliminary injunction order for reinstatement.
• Marriott Corp. v. Great Am. Serv. Trades Council, AFL-CIO
  552 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1977-03-24 ·cited 2×
  The Norris-LaGuardia Act bars a preliminary injunction when the underlying dispute, though framed as trademark infringement, is fundamentally a labor dispute concerning employee representation.
• Biswanath Halder v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc.
  541 F.2d 130· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof required for a preliminary injunction, and thus the denial of the injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Schneider v. Betti S. Whaley
  541 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while plaintiffs are entitled to a hearing, the agency may suspend or terminate assistance pending the hearing if the sole issue is state or federal law or policy, and that the defendants' appeal was moot.
• Pehler v. Schoen
  537 F.2d 970· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prisoner's claim for injunctive relief from adverse conditions of confinement due to a detainer was moot after his transfer to Louisiana, and his request for release or parole revocation prevention was a habeas corpus claim requiring exhaustion of state re
• Schaefer v. Tannian
  538 F.2d 1234· 6th Cir.· 1976-06-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's preliminary injunction improperly extended to male officers hired with CETA funds and that the issue of retroactive seniority for victims of discrimination requires further consideration in light of Franks v. Bowman.
• Bednar v. Neb. Sch. Activities Ass'n
  531 F.2d 922· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction because the student demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm from being excluded from cross-country competition based on her sex.
• Stecher-Traung-Schmidt Corp. v. Self
  529 F.2d 567· 2d Cir.· 1976-01-29 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• Sigmon v. POE
  528 F.2d 311· 4th Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, finding the lower court's determination that the Board's action was not arbitrary or capricious was not clearly erroneous.
• Hollender v. S. R. F., Inc.
  321 So. 2d 627· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-10-31 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
• Local 32B, Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Sage Realty Corp.
  524 F.2d 601· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the defendants' RAB membership, thus affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Pub. Interest Research Grp. OF Mich. (Pirgim) v. Brinegar
  517 F.2d 917· 6th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for a highway construction project.
• Indep. Meat Packers Ass'n v. Butz
  514 F.2d 1119· 8th Cir.· 1975-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against new beef grading standards pending a full hearing.
• The N. Am. Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  512 F.2d 238· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the criminal contempt convictions of over 700 miners were invalid due to fundamental due process violations, including lack of proper notice, failure to state essential facts, and improper burden of proof.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. N. Am. Research & Dev. Corp.
  511 F.2d 1217· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the application of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2) did not deny appellants due process, as they had adequate notice and opportunity to present their defense.
• Biderman v. Rogers C. B. Morton
  507 F.2d 396· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction regarding motor vehicle permits pending an Environmental Impact Statement.
• Mar-Len Hous. Enters., Inc. v. Mar-Len Gardens "I" Corp.
  302 So. 2d 469· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-10-15 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Mar-Len Housing Enterprises appealed a trial court's decree determining the proper computation of a management fee under a 99-year management contract with twelve cooperative apartment corporations. The court held that the December 20, 1965 agreement excluding mortgage, lease, an
• ART Theatre Guild, Inc. v. Parrish
  503 F.2d 133· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the government is entitled to retain one copy of allegedly obscene material as evidence in a criminal prosecution, it must permit the exhibitor to copy the material if other copies are unavailable, to allow continued exhibition pending a judicial determi
• Conley Motor Express, Inc. v. Russell
  500 F.2d 124· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was properly granted because the appellants failed to demonstrate that their dispute with Conley involved an employer-employee relationship, which is a prerequisite for exemption from antitrust laws.
• Waclav James Jagiella v. Jagiella
  296 So. 2d 646· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-07-02 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  A husband filed a notice of appeal and petition for temporary injunction seeking review of a circuit court judgment ordering his incarceration for failure to produce a minor child, but the appellate court lacked a complete record to review the merits and dismissed without prejudi
• Am. Brands, Inc. v. Playgirl, Inc.
  498 F.2d 947· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-03 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits or that irreparable harm would occur without the injunction.
• Uldine Kuri v. Edelman
  491 F.2d 684· 7th Cir.· 1974-02-11 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court denied the motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding no strong showing of likely success on the merits for the plaintiffs' claim that the state's AFDC income reporting program violated federal law or the Constitution.
• City OF Miami Beach v. DOR Rich, Inc.
  289 So. 2d 52· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-01-31 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The City of Miami Beach appealed interlocutory orders granting injunctions that prevented enforcement of a zoning ordinance against tenants of an apartment hotel. The court reversed, holding that the tenants were bound by prior litigation concerning the same zoning ordinance and
• Fergus M. Sloan v. NEW York Stock Exch., Inc.
  489 F.2d 1· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, holding that the Exchange's disciplinary proceedings were not shown to be biased and that discovery requests were either premature or moot.
• Chrysler Corp. v. Dunlop
  490 F.2d 985· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the trial court erred by not determining if the Cost of Living Council's order deferring a price increase was supported by substantial evidence.
• Glover v. McMURRAY
  487 F.2d 403· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court should affirm the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
• N. Petrochemical Co. v. Tomlinson
  484 F.2d 1057· 7th Cir.· 1973-08-28 ·cited 2×·via Injunction Pendente Lite
  The court held that a trade secret owner is not entitled to an injunction against use of the secret for a period longer than it would have taken to independently develop it, especially when the alleged thief has not yet commercially exploited the secret.
• Cass v. United States
  483 F.2d 220· 9th Cir.· 1973-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the rounding provision of 10 U.S.C. § 687(a)(2) does not apply to the five-year eligibility requirement for readjustment pay, and a preliminary injunction cannot create eligibility.