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

• Capraro v. Lanier Bus. Prods., Inc.
  466 So. 2d 212· Fla.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 43×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court held that irreparable injury is presumed upon proof of breach of a valid covenant not to compete, eliminating the plaintiff's burden to prove irreparable harm as a prerequisite to obtaining a temporary injunction.
• Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. v. Liberty Cnty.
  406 So. 2d 461· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-03-10 ·cited 43×·via Temporary Injunction
  Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete appeals the dismissal of its complaint challenging Liberty County's award of a road resurfacing contract to Gulf Asphalt, which submitted a non-conforming bid by failing to bid on one of two required alternative specifications. The court reverses, hold
• Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc.
  522 F.2d 1235· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-08 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction, which was predicated on the prior denial of class action certification, is an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court also held that the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination
• Jewelle Gresham v. Chambers
  501 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-13 ·cited 43×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that absent proof of discrimination, informal word-of-mouth recruiting is permissible for staff appointments, and Title VII does not preempt claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• NEW York Tel. Co. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  445 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-22 ·cited 43×
  The court should not interpret a consent order's scope without a hearing, even if its language appears unambiguous, when there's a dispute about the parties' intent.
• Bath Indus., Inc. v. Emmet J. Blot & Hambro Am. Bank & Tr. Co.
  427 F.2d 97· 7th Cir.· 1970-05-20 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Williams Act requires disclosure when a group of stockholders owning more than 10% of a corporation's shares agree to act in concert, regardless of whether they purchase additional stock.
• Gwynn v. Cary A. Hardee as Governor of the State of Fla.
  92 Fla. 543· Fla.· 1926-08-05 ·cited 43×·via Temporary Injunction
  Harry Gwynn sought a temporary injunction to restrain state officials from enforcing contracts that allegedly violated Florida's school textbook law by omitting a required fifty-percent exchange provision. The Florida Supreme Court held that the disputed provision was never actua
• Savage v. Parker
  53 Fla. 1002· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 43×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an interlocutory injunction granted ex parte against an executor accused of mismanaging estate cattle. The court held that the plaintiff's showing was insufficient under applicable law and that the injunction was granted without proper statutory
• Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State
  210 So. 3d 1243· Fla.· 2017-02-16 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a 2015 law imposing a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before abortion procedures violates Florida's constitutional right to privacy and is presumptively unconstitutional under strict scrutiny review. The court rejected the First District's req
• Shea v. Cent. Diagnostic Servs., Inc.
  552 So. 2d 344· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-11-22 ·cited 42×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in ordering the return of the injunction bond, as the defendants are entitled to seek damages for wrongful issuance.
• Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  849 F.2d 1354· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 42×·via Injunction Pendente Lite
  The court affirmed the FTC's order, holding that Orkin's unilateral breach of over 200,000 customer contracts by increasing fixed annual renewal fees constituted an unfair act or practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
• LOU v. Belzberg
  834 F.2d 730· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-12 ·cited 42×
  State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over RICO claims, and the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state proceedings except in very limited circumstances.
• Wali v. Coughlin
  754 F.2d 1015· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Commissioner's refusal to allow inmates to receive a critical report on prison conditions, without applying established censorship guidelines or demonstrating a clear and present danger, violated their rights.
• Christian Schmidt Brewing Co. & Stroh Brewery Co., Inc. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc.
  753 F.2d 1354· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-17 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the relevant geographic market.
• Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. The Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  739 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 42×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court should have abstained from hearing the case due to important state interests implicated in the unlawful detainer proceedings.
• Williams v. Vukovich
  720 F.2d 909· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 42×
  A consent decree is illegal and contrary to public interest if it embodies impermissible waivers of future discrimination claims.
• In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litig. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips, Inc. v. A & B Mgmt. Corp. v. MRS. Paul's Kitchens
  689 F.2d 1137· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a district court may not award disputed monetary damages via a preliminary injunction when the movant has not requested such relief and has not demonstrated irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Neal
  669 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 42×
  A non-solicitation agreement is considered a contract not to engage in a competing business and is therefore unenforceable under Louisiana law unless the employer demonstrates substantial expenditures for employee training or advertising.
• Kling v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  633 F.2d 876· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a private right of action exists under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for claims under this section.
• John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Prods., Inc.
  588 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted, the scope of the injunction issued by the district court was too broad and required modification to address only the specific conduct complained of and allow for statutory defenses.
• Ill. Migrant Council v. Alva L. Pilliod
  540 F.2d 1062· 7th Cir.· 1976-08-17 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge argues that the injunction should not have been granted due to issues with standing and the principles of equitable restraint, even if the underlying Fourth Amendment violations occurred.
• CES Publ'g Corp. v. ST. Regis Publ'ns, Inc.
  531 F.2d 11· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the term 'Consumer Electronics' is generic and cannot be a trademark, even if it acquired secondary meaning, and thus affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
• Eisenberg v. The Hartz Mountain Corp.
  519 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-13 ·cited 42×·via Temporary Injunction
  A temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA should not be granted if it deprives employees of the benefits of an existing labor contract and collective bargaining, especially when the alleged unfair labor practice is minor and the administrative proceedings are signifi
• Milsen Co. v. The Southland Corp.
  454 F.2d 363· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion because the district court erred in finding no connection between the alleged antitrust violations and the franchisor's attempt to collect franchise fees and terminate agreements.
• Emery AIR Freight Corp. v. Local Union 295
  449 F.2d 586· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-24 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the underlying dispute was not arbitrable, and the contempt order and fine were imposed without a proper hearing, requiring reconsideration.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. N. Am. Research & Dev. Corp.
  424 F.2d 63· 2d Cir.· 1970-03-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction against North American, White, and Bowman was properly granted, but the refusal to enjoin Dillman, Blumberg, Orenzoff, and Lars Hagglof & Co. was vacated and remanded.
• Interphoto Corp. v. Minolta Corp.
  417 F.2d 621· 2d Cir.· 1969-10-16 ·cited 42×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the manufacturer's challenges to the district court's findings of fact and conclusions regarding irreparable injury were without merit, and affirmed the district court's orders.
• Indus. Bank OF Wash. v. Tobriner
  405 F.2d 1321· D.C. Cir.· 1968-02-15 ·cited 42×
  The court dismissed the appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no need for interlocutory relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Nelson v. Miller
  373 F.2d 474· 3d Cir.· 1967-02-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction, as the availability of post-discharge administrative review and the 'Honorable' discharge status mitigated potential irreparable harm.
• Indus. Elecs. Corp. v. Cline
  330 F.2d 480· 3d Cir.· 1964-04-21 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof regarding the amount in controversy and irreparable injury.
• Lane Bryant, Inc. v. Maternity Lane
  173 F.2d 559· 9th Cir.· 1949-03-11 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the complaint stated a valid cause of action and that the trial court erred in dismissing it based on affidavits without affording the plaintiff an opportunity for a full trial.
• Peck v. Champlin H. Spencer
  26 Fla. 23· Fla.· 1890-01-01 ·cited 42×
  Spencer, a taxpayer and mayoral candidate in Daytona, sought an injunction to prevent the town from using municipal funds to defend election-related litigation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, holding that municipal corporations lack authority to appropriate ta
• Mallory v. Harkness
  923 F. Supp. 1546· S.D. Fla.· 1996-03-12 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Attorney General and the Florida Bar are liable for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, with specific apportionment, and that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable costs.
• Naegele Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Jacksonville
  659 So. 2d 1046· Fla.· 1995-08-24 ·cited 41×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed a district court's decision to quash a temporary injunction that had prohibited the City of Jacksonville from levying fines against billboard companies for violating a sign ordinance. The court ultimately approved the district court's decisio
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc.
  861 F.2d 1020· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 41×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, holding that the FTC has the authority to seek such relief under section 13(b) of the FTCA, and that the defendants' alleged deceptive advertising practices constituted a 'proper case' for injunctive relie
• Miss. Power & Light Co. & Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. United GAS Pipe Line Co.
  760 F.2d 618· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-17 ·cited 41×
  The court held that a temporary injunction was not supported by a sufficient showing of irreparable injury, which is a necessary prerequisite for such relief.
• Commerce Park AT DFW Freeport v. Mardian Constr. Co.
  729 F.2d 334· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 41×
  A district court's order staying litigation pending arbitration is not an injunction and thus not subject to the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d); furthermore, state laws that conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act are preempted.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. H. N. Singer, Inc.
  668 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the district court had the authority to issue a preliminary injunction, including an asset freeze, under Sections 13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, and that the modified order compelling production of documents did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against
• Sperry Int'l Trade, Inc. v. Gov't OF Israel
  670 F.2d 8· 2d Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 41×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that Sperry failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a necessary element for a preliminary injunction under either prong of the Second Circuit's standard. Therefore, the district court erred in granting the injunction.
• Engine Specialties, Inc. v. Bombardier Ltd.
  605 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1979-07-25 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the agreement between Bombardier and Agrati constituted a division of markets, a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and that Bombardier had the intent and ability to compete in the minicycle market.
• DOE v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc.
  529 F.2d 638· 4th Cir.· 1975-11-06 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the hospital's policy of prohibiting abortions, based on an unconstitutional state statute, constituted state action and that denying such abortions caused irreparable injury, warranting injunctive relief.
• Parks v. Honorable John T. Dunlop
  517 F.2d 785· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-13 ·cited 41×
  The court held that federal employees suing under Title VII are not required to exhaust administrative remedies, but that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted without a showing of irreparable harm.
• Buchanan v. United States Postal Serv.
  508 F.2d 259· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Postal Service's consolidation of district offices was not a "change in the nature of postal services" requiring submission to the Postal Rate Commission, but affirmed the preliminary injunction for the Retail Analysis Program (RAP) due to factual disputes
• Flight Eng'rs' Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  303 F.2d 5· 5th Cir.· 1962-06-07 ·cited 41×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction against a strike over a "minor dispute" under the Railway Labor Act was proper to preserve the status quo pending determination by the System Board of Adjustment, and that the injunction against the February strike was moot.
• Foundry Servs., Inc. v. Beneflux Corp.
  206 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1953-07-14 ·cited 41×·via Injunction Pendente Lite
  The court held that an injunction pendente lite was improvidently granted because the plaintiff failed to show irreparable injury, as any loss from competition could be adequately redressed by money damages.
• Haelan Labs., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.
  202 F.2d 866· 2d Cir.· 1953-02-16 ·cited 41×·via Temporary Injunction
• Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., Inc.
  693 So. 2d 615· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-03-26 ·cited 40×·via Temporary Injunction
  Steve Hunter appeals the denial of his motion to dissolve a temporary injunction issued in a non-compete dispute with his former employer. The court affirmed, holding that because Hunter had notice of and participated in the initial injunction hearing, he was required to present
• H.H. Robertson v. United Steel Deck, Inc.
  820 F.2d 384· Fed. Cir.· 1987-05-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction for patent infringement, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and sufficient equitable grounds.
• Gale Tustin v. Heckler
  749 F.2d 1055· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Secretary's decision to suspend periodic disability reviews and restore benefits only to those without a final administrative decision did not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
• Sharon Steel Corp. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  691 F.2d 1039· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-28 ·cited 40×
  Boilerplate successor obligor clauses in indentures do not permit assignment of public debt in the course of a liquidation unless 'all or substantially all' of the company's assets at the time the liquidation plan is determined upon are transferred to a single purchaser.