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

• Eckerd Corp. v. Corners Grp., Inc.
  786 So. 2d 588· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-12-29 ·cited 1×·via Temporary Injunction
  A restrictive covenant prohibiting use of property as a pharmacy or drug store prohibits use of that property for parking and other facilities that are integral and necessary parts of a competing pharmacy operation located on adjacent unrestricted property, even if the pharmacy b
• Gennaro DeMAIO v. Starr
  791 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-08-09 ·cited 1×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering a mutual restraining order without proper pleadings or testimony, violating the appellant's due process rights.
• Addison v. Forest Serv. of US Dept. of Agric.
  108 F. Supp. 2d 1365· M.D. Fla.· 2000-07-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for permanent injunctive relief was moot because the Forest Service adopted a new policy that complied with the prior injunction, and there was no reasonable expectation the alleged violation would recur.
• Howard v. City of Jacksonville
  109 F. Supp. 2d 1360· M.D. Fla.· 2000-06-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the City of Jacksonville's 120-day moratorium on adult entertainment licenses is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, violating the First Amendment.
• Vinson v. Humana, Inc.
  975 F. Supp. 2d 430· M.D. Fla.· 1999-11-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the psychotherapist-patient privilege under federal common law does not protect the identity of the patient or facts showing the occurrence of psychotherapy, only the substance of confidential communications.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Slimamerica, Inc.
  77 F. Supp. 2d 1263· S.D. Fla.· 1999-06-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendants engaged in deceptive acts and practices and made false advertisements in violation of the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated weight loss claims and misrepresenting product endorsements.
• Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin.
  47 F. Supp. 2d 1352· S.D. Fla.· 1999-04-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida's Medicaid Rate Plan for ICF/DD providers was inadequate and violated the Boren Amendment by failing to provide reasonable and adequate reimbursement rates, and that cluster facilities were improperly denied reimbursement under the Rate Plan.
• Fla. Marine Fisheries Comm'n (Division OF LAW Enforcement) & The State of Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Pringle
  736 So. 2d 17· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-04-06 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission and Department of Environmental Protection appealed a circuit court judgment that declared certain net fishing restrictions unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed, holding that the respondents failed to exhaust available administrat
• Austin v. MID State Fire Equip. OF Cent. Fla., Inc.
  727 So. 2d 1097· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-03-05 ·cited 1×·via Temporary Injunction
  William Austin appeals a temporary injunction enforcing his non-compete agreement with his former employer, Mid State Fire Equipment. The court affirmed the injunction's bar on soliciting customers and disclosing pricing information but reversed the portion prohibiting Austin fro
• Campos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  70 F. Supp. 2d 1296· S.D. Fla.· 1998-10-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding the INS's alleged systematic failure to follow its own regulations for evaluating medical waivers, thus warranting a preliminary injunction.
• Gibson v. Lee Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  1 F. Supp. 2d 1426· M.D. Fla.· 1998-01-20 ·cited 1×
  The court granted a preliminary injunction against the teaching of the Bible History II curriculum, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that it violates the Establishment Clause, but denied the injunction for the Bible History I curriculum, finding the secul
• White's Place, Inc. v. Glover
  975 F. Supp. 1333· M.D. Fla.· 1997-08-27 ·cited 1×
  White's Place, Inc., operator of an adult entertainment establishment called The Gold Club, sought a preliminary injunction against the City of Jacksonville and Sheriff Glover to prevent enforcement of the Jacksonville Adult Entertainment and Services Code, alleging the ordinance
• Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cnty. v. J.M. Ex Rel. L.M.
  957 F. Supp. 1252· M.D. Fla.· 1997-04-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the School Board is entitled to an injunction temporarily enjoining the 'stay-put' provision of the IDEA because the student's current placement poses a substantial likelihood of injury to others, and the School Board has made reasonable efforts to accommodate
• Shell Oil Co. v. A.Z. Servs., Inc.
  990 F. Supp. 1406· S.D. Fla.· 1997-02-13 ·cited 1×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Shell's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Shell was likely to succeed on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm.
• Winter v. Kawasaki
  696 So. 2d 369· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-12-20 ·cited 1×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that both the order granting temporary injunction and custody to the husband and the order transferring venue to Duval County were proper and should be affirmed.
• Tax Cap Comm. v. Save Our Everglades, Inc.
  933 F. Supp. 1077· S.D. Fla.· 1996-07-09 ·cited 1×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Lanham Act claims because the defendant's petition drive did not constitute 'use in commerce' as defined by the Act, and therefore declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.
• Church of Iron Oak v. City of Palm Bay
  868 F. Supp. 1361· M.D. Fla.· 1994-10-11 ·cited 1×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that it would not issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction because plaintiffs had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and because abstention was appropriate pending a local zoning board decision.
• Krebs v. Fed. Deposit Ins.
  751 F. Supp. 1323· M.D. Fla.· 1994-03-31 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) barred the plaintiffs' claims based on alleged unwritten promises for end loan financing, and also defeated the plaintiffs' affirmative defenses to the FDIC's counterclaims.
• S. Dade Land Corp. v. Sullivan
  853 F. Supp. 404· S.D. Fla.· 1993-11-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for any of their claims, thus denying their emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.
• Ark. Peace Ctr. v. Ark. Dep't OF Pollution Control & Ecology
  999 F.2d 1212· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that challenges to CERCLA removal actions are barred by 42 U.S.C. § 9613(h) until the action is completed, regardless of whether the challenge is brought under CERCLA or another statute like RCRA.
• Merrill Lynch v. Salvano
  999 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a district court has the authority to grant a temporary restraining order in an arbitrable dispute to preserve the status quo, but this authority does not extend indefinitely once arbitration has commenced.
• DOE v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist.
  994 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-16 ·cited 1×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against school-sponsored prayer and in denying intervention to Rutherford Institute.
• Nemer Jeep-Eagle, Inc. v. Jeep-Eagle Sales Corp.
  992 F.2d 430· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-28 ·cited 1×
  A status quo injunction pending arbitration, when based on a contract's status quo provision, must be analyzed under specific performance principles, not preliminary injunction standards.
• Pritchard v. Carlton
  821 F. Supp. 671· S.D. Fla.· 1993-04-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Holocaust Memorial is a non-public forum, and the City of Miami Beach's restriction on political speech within its grounds is reasonable and constitutional under the First Amendment.
• United States v. Brown
  988 F.2d 658· 6th Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the 1990 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 1345 did not limit the district court's authority to freeze assets in civil fraud cases not involving banking law violations. However, the court remanded because the district court froze untainted assets along with those trace
• Chaparro-Febus v. Int'l Longshoremen Ass'n
  983 F.2d 325· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 1×
  The court held that PRMSA, as a political subdivision of Puerto Rico, is excluded from the definition of 'employer' under the LMRA, thus barring subject matter jurisdiction. It also held that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation by agreeing to seniority change
• Campbell Soup Co. v. Conagra, Inc.
  977 F.2d 86· 3d Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Campbell failed to make a clear showing of immediate irreparable harm, which is required for a preliminary injunction.
• Ass'n OF Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v. United Airlines, Inc.
  976 F.2d 102· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the dispute over staffing a new domicile in Paris was a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, not subject to injunction, because United's actions were arguably justified by the collective bargaining agreement.
• United States v. Hochschild
  977 F.2d 208· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-25 ·cited 1×
  A corporate officer who has actual notice of an injunction directed to the corporation can be held in criminal contempt for violating it, even if not personally named as a party in the original civil action.
• Dahl-Eimers v. Mut. of Omaha Life Ins.
  812 F. Supp. 1193· N.D. Fla.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 1×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff's proposed high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant (HDC-ABMT) using the I.C.E. drug combination is 'experimental' under the terms of her insurance policy, and therefore not covered.
• The Fund FOR Animals, Inc. v. Lujan
  962 F.2d 1391· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 1×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars the Fund's MEPA claims against state defendants, and federal involvement is insufficient to enjoin state defendants for NEPA violations. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker
  789 F. Supp. 1579· S.D. Fla.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 1×
  The court granted plaintiffs' request for supplemental findings regarding the APA and granted a limited injunction for First Amendment access, while denying other injunctive relief.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker
  789 F. Supp. 1552· S.D. Fla.· 1991-12-03 ·cited 1×
  The District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted preliminary injunctive relief to the Haitian Refugee Center (HRC) and individual Haitian plaintiffs challenging the U.S. government's forced repatriation of Haitians interdicted at sea without adequate procedural saf
• Church of Scientology Flag Servs. Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater
  773 F. Supp. 321· M.D. Fla.· 1991-07-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because the lawsuit did not vindicate its rights, did not result in the cessation of the challenged behavior, and did not materially alter the legal relationship of the
• S. Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin
  924 F.2d 98· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the issue of injunctive relief under Rule 65 is governed by federal procedural law.
• Alan Skop, Inc. v. Benjamin Moore, Inc.
  909 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 1×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the plaintiff's oral dealership agreement claim is likely barred by the New York statute of frauds due to inconsistent representations about its duration.
• Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters v. Almac's, Inc.
  894 F.2d 464· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction because the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as the status quo could be substantially restored by an arbitrator's award.
• United States v. The Singer Co.
  889 F.2d 1327· 4th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to prevent Singer from dissipating assets and in denying Singer's motion to approve certain transactions.
• Transamerica Premium Ins. Co. v. Cavalry Constr., Inc.
  552 So. 2d 225· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-10-05 ·cited 1×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that while collateral security clauses are enforceable, the party seeking quia timet relief must establish a rational basis for fearing loss.
• Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A. v. Clarke
  712 F. Supp. 1549· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Comptroller's interpretation of the McFadden Act, defining 'state bank' by function rather than state label, is a reasonable exercise of authority consistent with the doctrine of competitive equality.
• Avery Dev. Corp. v. The Vill. BY THE SEA Condo. Apts., Inc.
  539 So. 2d 616· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-03-22 ·cited 1×·via Temporary Injunction
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, finding a sufficient basis in the record for the injunction.
• WJA Realty Ltd. P'ship v. Nelson
  708 F. Supp. 1268· S.D. Fla.· 1989-03-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the INS regulation allowing suspension of H-1 visa holders' work authorizations during a strike is an impermissible assumption of legislative power and invalid as applied to H-1 visa holders.
• Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of Greater Miami, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
  706 F. Supp. 1525· S.D. Fla.· 1989-01-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on its due process claim and equitable estoppel claim, justifying a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the zoning ordinance as interpreted.
• Centel Cable Television Co. of Fla. v. Burg & Divosta Corp.
  712 F. Supp. 176· S.D. Fla.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the developer's denial of access to a franchised cable company to install its system in public rights-of-way and easements was an attempt to prevent competition and was unenforceable under the Cable Act.
• Doebereiner v. Sohio Oil Co.
  683 F. Supp. 791· S.D. Fla.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 1×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to justify a preliminary injunction, as the franchisor's termination of the lease was based on the franchisee's failure to comply with a reasonable and material provision re
• Islamorada Charter Boat Ass'n v. Verity
  676 F. Supp. 244· S.D. Fla.· 1988-01-08 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the application for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to such relief.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Warner
  674 F. Supp. 836· S.D. Fla.· 1987-11-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the SEC failed to establish a likelihood of future violations, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Richter v. United States
  552 F. Supp. 255· S.D. Fla.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 1×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
• Pac. W. Cable Co. v. City OF Sacramento
  798 F.2d 353· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pacific West's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Kobell v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union
  788 F.2d 189· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that injunctive relief under NLRA Section 10(l) was appropriate despite a pending Section 8(a)(2) charge against the employer, because the charge had been remedied by a settlement agreement at the time of the injunction application.