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

• KMW Int'l v. Chase Manhattan Bank
  606 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1979-08-10 ·cited 46×·via Application For Preliminary Injunction
  The court held that KMW failed to meet the standard for a preliminary injunction because it did not demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits, as the obligation under an irrevocable letter of credit is independent of the underlying transaction and poli
• Caulfield v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF NEW York
  583 F.2d 605· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the collection of ethnic data, but erred in sua sponte remanding the case to HEW for further administrative proceedings.
• State v. Artis
  345 So. 2d 1109· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-05-20 ·cited 46×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a circuit court's grant of a temporary injunction ordering reinstatement of security guards at a state hospital who engaged in a "sick out." The appellate court reversed, holding that the guards had an adequate
• Friends OF THE Earth v. Carey
  535 F.2d 165· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-26 ·cited 46×
  The court held that notice to the State was sufficient for a citizen suit against its agency, and that while the court lacked jurisdiction over the transit fare increase itself, it must order enforcement of the Clean Air Act's transportation control plan strategies that are admit
• McKELVEY v. McKELVEY
  323 So. 2d 651· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-01-09 ·cited 46×·via Temporary Injunction
  In this family law case, Andrew McKelvey appealed a trial court's finding of personal jurisdiction over him as a non-resident defendant in his wife Elaine's action for a declaratory decree regarding her dower interest in property. The court affirmed, holding that McKelvey's attor
• Cnty. OF Alameda v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  520 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-19 ·cited 46×
  A final determination of disallowance under the Social Security Act is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• Dick Jones v. Dist. OF Columbia Redev. Land Agency
  499 F.2d 502· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-26 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while the District Court correctly interpreted the Housing Code and the timing of NEPA statements, it erred in its interpretation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, reversing and remanding on that issue.
• United States v. Diapulse Corp. OF Am.
  457 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-20 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the shipment of the Diapulse device due to misbranding, as the company failed to correct its labeling and the injunction was necessary to protect the public.
• Nestor v. Hershey
  425 F.2d 504· D.C. Cir.· 1969-12-16 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appellant was entitled to a mandatory I-S deferment under the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, and that pre-induction judicial review was therefore permissible. The lower court's dismissal was reversed.
• Gen. Elec. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  412 F.2d 512· 2d Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 46×
  An employer may refuse to bargain with a union committee that includes members of other unions during preliminary, voluntary discussions, but cannot refuse to bargain with such a committee during mandatory bargaining periods absent a showing of bad faith or ulterior motive.
• E. W. Bliss Co. v. Struthers-Dunn, Inc.
  408 F.2d 1108· 8th Cir.· 1969-03-28 ·cited 46×
  A preliminary injunction must be specific in its terms and describe with reasonable detail the acts to be restrained, and cannot be overly broad or create a de facto non-compete agreement.
• United States v. Sch. Dist. 151 OF Cook Cnty.
  404 F.2d 1125· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-17 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge believes the case was improperly decided on a motion for a preliminary injunction and that the defendants were denied a fair trial due to the rushed proceedings and insufficient time to prepare a defense.
• Navarro v. Gannon
  385 F.2d 512· 2d Cir.· 1967-11-20 ·cited 46×
  The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) protects the right of local union members to meet and discuss union business without interference from the international union, except through lawful trusteeship procedures.
• Carroll v. Am. Fed'n OF Musicians OF the United States & Canada
  295 F.2d 484· 2d Cir.· 1961-10-17 ·cited 46×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the denial of a temporary injunction against the collection of a "tax" and a "traveling surcharge" was an abuse of discretion, as these likely violated Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
• Dollar v. Land
  154 F.2d 307· D.C. Cir.· 1946-03-18 ·cited 46×
  The District Court erred in dismissing the complaint on jurisdictional grounds, specifically sovereign immunity, without reaching the merits of the case.
• Acrylicon USA, LLC v. Silikal GMBH
  985 F.3d 1350· 11th Cir.· 2021-01-26 ·cited 45×
  Acrylicon USA sued German flooring-resin manufacturer Silikal for breaching a 2010 settlement agreement by manufacturing and selling 1061 SW resin without permission, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the
• Hancock Indus. & Ace Serv. Corp. & E. Waste Removal & Charles Crumbley, Inc. v. Schaeffer
  811 F.2d 225· 3d Cir.· 1987-02-06 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment was proper because the defendants were immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine and the haulers' procedural challenges were either harmless error or based on insufficient grounds.
• Johnson v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  734 F.2d 774· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 45×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding due process claims related to non-judicial foreclosure.
• Am. Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt
  714 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, even considering potential NEPA violations, because the public interest in protecting fragile desert resources outweighed the plaintiffs' claims.
• Kenai OIL & GAS, Inc. v. The Dep't OF the Interior OF the United States
  671 F.2d 383· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-17 ·cited 45×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The Superintendent cannot refuse approval of communitization agreements solely because he believes Indian lands would fare better economically outside the proposed unit.
• Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland
  637 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-20 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in its review standard and in finding that federal defendants complied with NEPA regarding alternatives and project segmentation.
• Brown v. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs OF the State OF Nev. & Bd. of Governors of the State Bar of Nev.
  623 F.2d 605· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-18 ·cited 45×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review a state court's decision on an individual application for admission to the bar, even if the claim alleges arbitrary application of rules or constitutional violations.
• SK&F v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc.
  625 F.2d 1055· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-28 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted, affirming that copying the distinctive trade dress of a drug can constitute unfair competition under New Jersey law, even if the product is unpatented.
• Klaus v. Hi-Shear Corp.
  528 F.2d 225· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-15 ·cited 45×
  The court held that preliminary injunctions were improperly issued based on mistaken legal theories, particularly regarding irreparable harm and indispensable parties, and reversed or vacated several injunctions while affirming others.
• Mullis v. Arco Petroleum Corp. & Atl. Richfield Corp.
  502 F.2d 290· 7th Cir.· 1974-08-05 ·cited 45×
  A local jobber cannot use the Robinson-Patman Act or Section 2 of the Sherman Act to prevent a lawful termination of their distributorship, even during a product shortage, if the termination itself is not unlawful and the defendant lacks monopoly power in the relevant market.
• City OF Boston v. Volpe
  464 F.2d 254· 1st Cir.· 1972-07-17 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a tentative allocation of federal airport aid funds, followed by a project application, does not federalize the project to the extent that construction must halt pending a final environmental impact statement.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Free Sewing Mach. Co. & Apsco Prods., Inc.
  256 F.2d 806· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-23 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in partially denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, as granting the full relief requested would have decided the case on its merits.
• State v. Swope
  159 Fla. 18· Fla.· 1947-05-20 ·cited 45×·via Temporary Injunction
  Florida Supreme Court held that the 1945 amendments to the Real Estate Commission statute did not clearly transfer final jurisdictional authority from the Circuit Court to the Commission, despite apparent legislative intent. The Court construed the statute to authorize the Commis
• El Modello Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Gato
  25 Fla. 886· Fla.· 1889-06-01 ·cited 45×·via Temporary Injunction
  El Modello Cigar Manufacturing Company appealed a chancery court decision upholding an injunction against their use of similar trade marks to those of Eduardo H. Gato's cigar brand. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the injunction but reversed the lower court's dismissal of the
• Barry J. Koerpel, M.D. v. Heckler
  797 F.2d 858· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Dr. Koerpel's claims of liberty deprivation were sufficiently colorable to establish federal court jurisdiction, but ultimately found that he had not raised difficult or doubtful questions on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction.
• Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. The Chronicle Publ'g Co., Inc.
  762 F.2d 1374· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-14 ·cited 44×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.
• Aleknagik Natives Ltd. v. Andrus
  648 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and should have granted preliminary injunctive relief.
• Corenswet, Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc.
  594 F.2d 129· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 44×
  An express contract term allowing termination 'for any reason' permits arbitrary termination, and the Uniform Commercial Code's good faith obligation does not override such express terms.
• DRY Creek Lodge, Inc. v. The United States
  515 F.2d 926· 10th Cir.· 1975-05-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits without proper notice and a full hearing, as the plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently invoked federal jurisdiction.
• Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Energy Admin. & Frank G. Zarb
  516 F.2d 1397· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1975-04-21 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Section 211(d)(2) of the Economic Stabilization Act does not preclude appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) for appeals from preliminary injunction orders.
• DOE v. Bellin Mem'l Hosp.
  479 F.2d 756· 7th Cir.· 1973-06-01 ·cited 44×
  A private hospital's refusal to perform abortions, even if it receives federal or state funding and is state-regulated, does not violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the state directly influences or participates in the decision.
• Bose Corp. v. Linear Design Labs, Inc.
  467 F.2d 304· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-21 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction for patent infringement and Lanham Act violations, but modified the order to require the defendant to affix its name to a visible surface of the product.
• Bannercraft Clothing Co., Inc. v. The Renegotiation Bd.
  466 F.2d 345· D.C. Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 44×
  The Freedom of Information Act confers jurisdiction on district courts to enjoin administrative proceedings pending judicial determination of document disclosure, and the exhaustion doctrine does not preclude such injunctions when necessary to prevent irreparable injury.
• Am. Bible Soc'y v. Winton M. Blount
  446 F.2d 588· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-12 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the suits were not moot because the existence of injunction bonds created a likelihood of future litigation on the same issues, and that the Postmaster General's actions are subject to judicial review for arbitrariness, capriciousness, or unconstitutionality.
• Lieberman v. Marshall
  236 So. 2d 120· Fla.· 1970-05-28 ·cited 44×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a temporary injunction that prohibited SDS members from occupying university buildings without permission, holding that the university had a valid interest in maintaining campus order and that the students' constitutional rights to free speech a
• Shapiro v. Cont'l Record Co., Inc.
  386 F.2d 426· 2d Cir.· 1967-11-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and interlocutory default judgment.
• Am. Fed'n of Musicians v. Stein
  213 F.2d 679· 6th Cir.· 1954-06-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction, as the Norris-LaGuardia Act was inapplicable and the jurisdictional question regarding diversity of citizenship was a substantial issue for the district court to determine.
• Sims v. Greene
  160 F.2d 512· 3d Cir.· 1947-03-04 ·cited 44×
  A restraining order continued beyond the statutory period without consent and without required findings of fact and conclusions of law becomes a preliminary injunction, from which an appeal lies.
• Washington v. DeBeaugrine
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1332· N.D. Fla.· 2009-10-01 ·cited 43×
  A state official's erroneous denial of a Medicaid beneficiary's federal right to a hearing before benefit termination or reduction can be challenged in federal court, not solely in state court.
• Bradley v. Health Coal., Inc.
  687 So. 2d 329· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-02-05 ·cited 43×·via Temporary Injunction
  Bradley, a former salesman, appeals a temporary injunction enforcing a noncompetition agreement after he went to work for a competitor. The court reverses the injunction and remands, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to consider Bradley's defenses of employer breach
• Guar. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ryan
  928 F.2d 994· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-25 ·cited 43×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the contract did not grant an unmistakable right to treat supervisory goodwill as regulatory capital for a fixed period, and FIRREA's statutory requirements for phasing out goodwill apply. Therefore, the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Hoxworth v. Blinder
  903 F.2d 186· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 43×
  A district court has the power to issue a preliminary injunction to protect a potential future damages remedy, but the value of the encumbered assets must bear a reasonable relationship to the likely amount of the plaintiffs' expected recovery.
• Chalk v. United States Dist. Court Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  840 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 43×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction, finding that the teacher with AIDS demonstrated probable success on the merits and irreparable injury.
• Teradyne, Inc. v. Mostek Corp.
  797 F.2d 43· 1st Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 43×
  An interlocutory order requiring a party to set aside assets to satisfy a potential judgment, even if similar to an attachment, is appealable as a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it is coercive and treated as such by the parties and the court. Furthermore,
• W.E. Callaway, Jr. v. Block
  763 F.2d 1283· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 43×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the 1984 peanut quota regulations did not conflict with the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 and did not violate due process, affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction.