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

• Hopewell Twp. Citizens I-95 Comm. v. Volpe
  482 F.2d 376· 3d Cir.· 1973-07-02 ·cited 2×·via Application For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the date of federal design approval, and res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar the current action.
• On-Line Sys., Inc. v. Staib
  479 F.2d 308· 8th Cir.· 1973-05-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a non-competition clause lacking geographic limitations is likely unenforceable under Pennsylvania law, and the preliminary injunction based on it was therefore improper.
• Matya v. United States
  478 F.2d 330· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff sued the wrong party, the United States, which is immune from suit without its consent, and therefore the case must be dismissed.
• Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. OF Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
  472 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 2×
  A temporary restraining order issued by a state court remains in full force and effect after removal to federal court until dissolved or modified by the federal district court, irrespective of state-law time limitations.
• United Transp. Union E v. Burlington N., Inc.
  470 F.2d 813· 8th Cir.· 1972-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the dispute was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and that injunctive relief was not warranted pending the Board's decision.
• Saxe v. United States & Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
  471 F.2d 1293· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-15 ·cited 2×·via Application For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for judicial relief regarding the HUD code enforcement program.
• United States v. Springer
  478 F.2d 43· 9th Cir.· 1972-11-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted without a final judgment and proof of irreparable harm.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Seminole Asphalt Ref., Inc.
  269 So. 2d 28· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-11-21 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The United Steelworkers appeals a trial court's temporary injunction issued without notice against union picketing at Seminole Asphalt Refining's plant. The appellate court reversed, holding that the unverified petition and affidavit were legally insufficient to support an ex par
• Pauls v. Seamans
  468 F.2d 361· 1st Cir.· 1972-10-12 ·cited 2×
  Active duty time obtained solely through an improperly issued restraining order and injunction cannot be counted towards the two-year period required for sanctuary from involuntary release under 10 U.S.C. § 1163(d).
• Automated Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Martin
  467 F.2d 1181· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's request for a preliminary injunction.
• Holinone, Inc. v. Int'l Hole-In-One Club, Inc.
  466 F.2d 504· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no clear abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Sanders v. Wyman
  464 F.2d 488· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appeal should be dismissed because the case is moot, as there is no longer a threat of disclosure of confidential welfare recipient information.
• Riback Enters., Inc. v. Denham
  452 F.2d 845· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-26 ·cited 2×
  A preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of greeting card booklets solely because they imitated the format of the plaintiff's unpatented product was overly broad and improper under federal patent law principles.
• Sears v. Solien
  450 F.2d 353· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-03 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appellants had not exhausted their administrative remedies and the Board is the proper forum to interpret its own rules.
• In re Gulf Aerospace Corp. v. Platter
  449 F.2d 733· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-02 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the case should be remanded for final disposition due to changed circumstances and the government's broad interpretation of the injunction.
• Tuxworth v. Froehlke
  449 F.2d 763· 1st Cir.· 1971-10-04 ·cited 2×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  A preliminary injunction should not be granted without a reasonable possibility of success on the merits, and the petitioner has not demonstrated such a possibility.
• James Austin Imus for himself v. United States Gov't
  447 F.2d 1008· 10th Cir.· 1971-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court lacked authority to grant relief regarding individual classification issues or the general objection to the ministerial exemption due to statutory prohibitions on review.
• Tasby v. Nolan Estes
  444 F.2d 124· 5th Cir.· 1971-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded the case for expeditious findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Atlanta Fed. & City Serv. Emps. Local Union 554, Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, AFL-CIO
  441 F.2d 1115· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the dissolution of the trusteeship and subsequent election did not moot the appeal, and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
• Lance v. Thompson
  432 F.2d 767· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the student's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Teamsters Local Union No. 769 v. Fontainbleau Hotel Corp.
  239 So. 2d 255· Fla.· 1970-09-16 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court vacated a temporary injunction prohibiting a union from picketing a hotel, finding that federal labor law preempts state authority to enjoin peaceful picketing in labor disputes. The Court held that the Circuit Court lacked sufficient factual basis to ex
• CY Ellis RAW BAR v. Dist. OF Columbia Redev. Land Agency
  433 F.2d 543· D.C. Cir.· 1970-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the RLA's interpretation and procedure violated the statute, and the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief to protect her statutory priority rights.
• James Bakalis & Nickie Bakalis, Inc. v. Simonson
  434 F.2d 515· D.C. Cir.· 1970-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the two suspension cases should have been treated as one, entitling the appellant to an appeal for a total suspension exceeding 30 days.
• Nat'l Socialist White People's Party v. Ringers
  429 F.2d 1269· 4th Cir.· 1970-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the case was not ripe for adjudication of constitutional issues.
• Wakulla-Silver Springs Co. v. Smith
  249 So. 2d 738· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-07-21 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Wakulla-Silver Springs Company appealed the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction to prevent Wakulla County from taking possession of and interfering with a strip of land that the company claimed to own. The court upheld the denial, finding the trial judge did not abuse
• Dalmo Sales Co., Inc. v. Tysons Corner Reg'l Shopping Ctr.
  429 F.2d 206· D.C. Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court.
• Cnty. OF Santa Barbara v. Malley
  426 F.2d 171· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claim for public hearings regarding Outer Continental Shelf permit applications, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Cowden Mfg. Co. v. Koratron Co., Inc.
  422 F.2d 371· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-18 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a temporary injunction and staying proceedings, but remanded for reconsideration of the stay in light of subsequent appellate action.
• The Wash. Free Cmty., Inc. v. Wilson
  426 F.2d 1213· D.C. Cir.· 1969-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate imminent and irreparable injury.
• SAN Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild v. Kennedy
  404 F.2d 37· 9th Cir.· 1968-04-19 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court rescinded its prior order allowing charging parties to intervene as appellees, but deemed it an authorization for them to appear as amici curiae.
• Va. Airmotive, Ltd. v. Canair Corp.
  393 F.2d 126· 4th Cir.· 1968-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show immediate and irreparable harm.
• The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Duval Cnty. v. The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Duval Cnty.
  192 So. 2d 321· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-11-18 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Board of Public Instruction of Duval County and the State Superintendent sought a constitutional stay writ or temporary injunction to prevent county officials from certifying and collecting taxes based on a budget that the county budget commission had reduced by $3 million de
• United Aircraft Corp. v. McCULLOCH
  365 F.2d 960· D.C. Cir.· 1966-07-21 ·cited 2×·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  A district court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board from conducting unfair labor practice proceedings or to review interlocutory rulings.
• Georgiades v. Georgiades
  186 So. 2d 810· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-05-27 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court dismissed a petition for certiorari because the issue raised, concerning a temporary injunction, became moot after the lower court dissolved the injunction. The court found that the dissolution rendered the appeal unnecessary.
• Spence v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  360 F.2d 887· 7th Cir.· 1966-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction compelling a railroad to furnish a specific number of boxcars, as such matters are primarily within the administrative competency of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Dean Foods Co. & Bowman Dairy Co.
  356 F.2d 481· 7th Cir.· 1966-01-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Trade Commission lacked the statutory authority to seek a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending administrative review of a merger.
• Richland v. Lou R. Crandall
  353 F.2d 183· 2d Cir.· 1965-11-05 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction is moot because the events sought to be restrained have already occurred.
• First La. Inv. Corp. v. United States
  351 F.2d 495· 5th Cir.· 1965-10-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction and appointing a receiver.
• ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. R.R. Yardmasters of Am., Afl-Cio
  345 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1965-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the National Railroad Adjustment Board has issued a decision on the underlying dispute.
• Int'l Union OF Elec. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  341 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-04 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the denial of a temporary injunction and dismissed the Local's appeal.
• Jules Pascul v. George Davis & Co.
  170 So. 2d 466· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-01-12 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this employment non-compete case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but reversed the trial court's refusal to dissolve a temporary injunction issued without service of process on the
• Craggett v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the Cleveland City Sch. Dist.
  338 F.2d 941· 6th Cir.· 1964-11-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the District Judge did not err in denying the preliminary injunction because the finding that the school board did not intend to segregate was not clearly erroneous.
• Beechwood Music Corp. & Ardmore & Beechwood v. VEE JAY Records, Inc.
  328 F.2d 728· 2d Cir.· 1964-02-19 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the compulsory license provision of the Copyright Act requires use within the United States, not merely manufacture in a foreign country, to trigger the license. The court also found the evidence presented did not sufficiently undermine the plaintiffs' probabi
• The United States Time Corp. v. Hamilton Watch Co.
  327 F.2d 338· 2d Cir.· 1964-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district judge properly exercised discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to stop a patent infringement suit against a customer.
• Universal Elec. Corp. v. Golden Shield Corp.
  316 F.2d 568· 1st Cir.· 1963-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the restrictive covenants in the employment agreements were reasonable and enforceable, and that the defendants' conduct also constituted actionable wrongs independent of the contracts.
• Goldman v. Henry's Drive IN, Inc.
  314 F.2d 162· 7th Cir.· 1963-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction when the plaintiff failed to present evidence to support his allegations despite the defendant's verified answer denying them.
• Janousek v. Doyle
  313 F.2d 922· 8th Cir.· 1963-02-20 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action and dismissed the appeal from the denial of the injunction as moot.
• Formulabs v. Hartley PEN Co.
  306 F.2d 148· 9th Cir.· 1962-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court vacated submissions and remanded for the district court to expeditiously rule on pending motions regarding intervention and disclosure of trade secrets, consolidating any appeals.
• Seafarers Int'l Union OF N. Am. v. United States
  304 F.2d 437· 9th Cir.· 1962-05-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that supplemental orders under the Labor Management Relations Act's national emergency provisions cannot extend injunctive sanctions beyond the statutory 80-day limit, even if necessary for full production.
• Everhart v. Everhart & Co., Inc.
  139 So. 2d 747· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-04-04 ·cited 2×·via Temporary Injunction
  Wade H. Everhart, Sr. appeals an interlocutory temporary injunction prohibiting him from using the name "Wade H. Everhart Co." The appellate court affirms, holding that the trial court's recital in the order that it heard plaintiff testimony controls the record, and that the appe