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

• Heavener v. R. W. Fla. Region, Inc.
  418 So. 2d 1074· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-08-04 ·cited 40×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a broad temporary injunction against soliciting franchisees of a competitor was not overly broad and affirmed the trial court's decision.
• Auburn News Co., Inc. v. Providence Journal Co.
  659 F.2d 273· 1st Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction against the newspaper publisher's conversion to a direct distribution system, as vertical integration alone does not violate antitrust laws and treble damages are an adequate remedy for alleged pre-
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. World Radio Mission, Inc.
  544 F.2d 535· 1st Cir.· 1976-11-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendants' investment plans constituted securities subject to anti-fraud provisions, and the First Amendment did not shield them from disclosure requirements. A preliminary injunction should have been granted.
• Diversified Mortg. Invs. v. U. S. Life Title Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  544 F.2d 571· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 40×
  A preliminary injunction should not rewrite a contract or grant final relief, and requires a showing of irreparable harm causally related to the enjoined conduct.
• Grubbs v. Butz
  514 F.2d 1323· D.C. Cir.· 1975-06-23 ·cited 40×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a federal employee is not required to exhaust administrative remedies after 180 days have passed without final agency action, and administrative proceedings may continue concurrently with a civil action, provided the employee is given a full opportunity to pre
• K-2 SKI Co. v. Head SKI Co., Inc.
  506 F.2d 471· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the award of attorney's fees was improper, and remanded the issues of the injunction's duration and damages for further consideration by the trial court.
• Silva v. Romney
  473 F.2d 287· 1st Cir.· 1973-02-02 ·cited 40×
  A private developer, partnered with a federal agency for a housing project, can be enjoined from taking actions affecting the environment pending the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
• Syntex Labs., Inc. v. The Norwich Pharmacal Co.
  437 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-02 ·cited 40×
  The court held that even if a more stringent standard for trademark infringement was applied to prescription pharmaceuticals, it is supportable and in accord with public policy due to the potential for serious public health consequences.
• JeRoyd W. Greene v. Howard Univ.
  412 F.2d 1128· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-17 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the student appellants' claims are moot, but the faculty appellants stated a cause of action for breach of contract due to the University's failure to provide timely notice of non-renewal.
• Miss Universe, Inc. v. Patricelli
  408 F.2d 506· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-20 ·cited 40×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that while the appellee's service marks are valid and entitled to protection, the injunction against the appellant's use of 'Miss World-U.S.A.' was overly broad and not supported by sufficient findings of actual confusion.
• Daniel v. Fla. State Tpk. Auth.
  213 So. 2d 585· Fla.· 1968-07-31 ·cited 40×·via Temporary Injunction
  A statute authorizing an administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations does not violate due process because it does not require a pre-adoption hearing, since quasi-legislative administrative functions do not necessarily require hearings and statutory publication and j
• Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Meter
  385 F.2d 265· 8th Cir.· 1967-11-02 ·cited 40×·via Temporary Injunction
  A district court's grant of a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) requires more than a finding of reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred; it must also demonstrate a probability that the Act's remedial purposes would be frustrated without immediate reli
• Chicago v. Switchmen's Union OF N. Am.
  292 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1961-06-09 ·cited 40×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an anti-strike injunction based on the union's alleged lack of good faith bargaining, as the record did not demonstrate a clear violation of the Railway Labor Act sufficient to overcome the Norris-LaGuardia Act's
• Doeskin Prods., Inc. v. United Paper Co.
  195 F.2d 356· 7th Cir.· 1952-04-10 ·cited 40×
  The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, as the salient facts were not seriously disputed and the appellate court cannot substitute its opinion for the trial court's findings.
• Int'l Union v. United States (two cases)
  177 F.2d 29· D.C. Cir.· 1949-06-06 ·cited 40×
  Individuals and unions must obey temporary court orders to maintain the status quo, even if the underlying statute is later found unconstitutional, and can be held in criminal contempt for willful disobedience.
• The Builders Supply Co. v. Acton
  56 Fla. 756· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 40×·via Temporary Injunction
  The Builders Supply Company appealed the dissolution of a temporary injunction restraining a removal action filed by J.W. Acton in County Judge's court. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order dissolving the injunction, holding that the bill failed to state suf
• Weinstein v. Yoram Aisenberg
  758 So. 2d 705· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-03-09 ·cited 39×
  A temporary injunction to freeze bank assets in a conversion action is improper where the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law in the form of money damages, notwithstanding allegations that the defendant may dissipate assets and render a money judgment uncollectible.
• Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt
  667 So. 2d 880· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-02-02 ·cited 39×·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering a written temporary injunction that exceeded its oral ruling and lacked sufficient factual findings to support the necessary criteria for issuance.
• United States v. The State OF Ala.
  791 F.2d 1450· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 39×
  The court held that Alabama State University lacked standing to sue under Section 1983 and Title VI, and that while the Eleventh Amendment bars injunctions against the State Board itself, it permits injunctive relief against Board members in their official capacities.
• Roper Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc.
  757 F.2d 1266· Fed. Cir.· 1985-03-15 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a patentee seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, and that mere apprehension of future infringement or Litton's financial solvency does not automatically establish irreparable harm.
• Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co. & Allstate Indem. Co.
  722 F.2d 1332· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-02 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not unambiguously mandate appraisal as a condition precedent to filing suit, and therefore the district court erred in ordering appraisal.
• Duplantier v. United States
  606 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 39×
  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is constitutional as applied to federal judges, and the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• Allison v. Froehlke
  470 F.2d 1123· 5th Cir.· 1972-12-27 ·cited 39×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction was proper because the plaintiffs did not show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits regarding the Corps of Engineers' modifications to a congressionally authorized flood control project.
• Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Detroit Typographical Union NO. 18
  471 F.2d 872· 6th Cir.· 1972-12-20 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because it failed to weigh the equities between the parties and make findings of irreparable harm, which are required prerequisites under Boys Markets.
• The Susquehanna Corp. v. PAN Am. Sulphur Co.
  423 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1970-03-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the tender offeror's disclosures regarding its intent to gain control and potential future merger plans were sufficiently fair and complete under the Securities Exchange Act, and thus did not violate disclosure or anti-fraud provisions.
• A. H. Bull S.S. Co. v. Nat'l Marine Eng'rs' Beneficial Ass'n, AFL-CIO
  250 F.2d 332· 2d Cir.· 1957-11-21 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions in labor disputes, even if involving supervisors, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction.
• Rosen v. Cascade Int'l, Inc.
  21 F.3d 1520· 11th Cir.· 1994-04-11 ·cited 38×
  Shareholders of Cascade International brought a class action against Dr. Lawrence Moses and others for securities fraud arising from allegedly fraudulent financial statements and unauthorized stock issuances that inflated the company's stock price. The district court granted a pr
• Zimmerman v. D.C.A. AT Welleby, Inc.
  505 So. 2d 1371· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-04-15 ·cited 38×·via Temporary Injunction
  Residents of a condominium sued to enjoin occupants from picketing and displaying signs to pressure the developer into making repairs, alleging defamation and tortious interference with prospective business relationships. The court affirmed the injunction in part but reversed the
• Brunswick Corp. v. Jones
  784 F.2d 271· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the covenant not to compete was reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer and thus enforceable, and affirmed the preliminary injunction.
• In re Feit & Drexler, Inc. v. Drexler
  760 F.2d 406· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 38×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court had the statutory authority to issue a mandatory turnover order for property located outside its territorial jurisdiction, and that the order was appealable as an interlocutory injunction. The court affirmed the district court's o
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Suter
  732 F.2d 1294· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 38×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding Suter's activities subject to the Investment Advisers Act and his speech not protected by the First Amendment due to its misleading nature.
• In re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. & Moseley v. Flight Transp. Corp.
  730 F.2d 1128· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Sharing Agreement is a settlement, not a reorganization plan, and that approving a settlement roughly splitting the constructive trust claim was not an abuse of discretion given the substantial legal questions involved. However, the exclusion of certain de
• Planned Parenthood OF Central AND Northern Arizona v. The State OF Ariz.
  718 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that while Arizona can refuse to fund abortion-related activities, the footnote was potentially unconstitutionally broad by withholding all state funds. The court also found the term 'counseling for abortion procedures' not unconstitutionally vague.
• Ideal Toy Corp. v. Plawner TOY MFG. Corp.
  685 F.2d 78· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was properly granted but modified its language to be more specific, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d).
• Ideal Indus., Inc. v. Gardner Bender, Inc.
  612 F.2d 1018· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that numbers originally adopted to indicate product size can acquire secondary meaning and function as common law trademarks, and affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, subject to modification.
• United Steelworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Fort Pitt Steel Casting
  598 F.2d 1273· 3d Cir.· 1979-04-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act allowed injunctions to preserve the arbitral process, even against employers, and that continuing premium payments during plant wind-down was necessary to maintain the status quo for arbitration.
• Am. Home Prods. Corp. & Boyle-Midway, Inc. v. Johnson Chem. Co., Inc.
  589 F.2d 103· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the mark ROACH INN is likely to cause confusion with the registered mark ROACH MOTEL.
• Gloria Banks v. Trainor
  525 F.2d 837· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-23 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction and its modifications were properly entered because the notices provided to food stamp recipients regarding benefit reductions were constitutionally inadequate and failed to comply with federal regulations.
• United States v. The City OF Jackson
  519 F.2d 1147· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 38×
  The court held that appellants were not entitled to intervene as of right in the government's employment discrimination suit and that the trial court's delay in ruling on a preliminary injunction did not constitute an appealable denial. Both appeals were dismissed.
• Glen-Arden Commodities, Inc. v. Hon. Mark A. Costantino
  493 F.2d 1027· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the sales of Scotch whisky warehouse receipts, coupled with promises of services and profit, constituted investment contracts and thus securities subject to SEC regulation.
• Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp.
  490 F.2d 714· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-09 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a settlement agreement, approved by the court, confers personal jurisdiction over a party, rendering a prior motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction moot.
• Williamson v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  468 F.2d 1201· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that individual employees are not bound by a prior government action under Title VII and can pursue claims for discriminatory layoff recalls, even if the government did not seek that specific relief previously.
• Semancik v. United Mine Workers OF Am. Dist. #5
  466 F.2d 144· 3d Cir.· 1972-08-16 ·cited 38×
  A union's disciplinary provision that is vague and infringes upon members' free speech rights under the LMRDA can be permanently enjoined by a district court.
• Nat'l Land & Inv. Co. v. Arlen Specter
  428 F.2d 91· 3d Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 38×·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary prerequisites.
• Intercontinental Container Transp. Corp. v. NEW York Shipping Ass'n, Inc.
  426 F.2d 884· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff (ICTC) had not shown probable success on the merits of its claim that the defendants' actions were motivated by anticompetitive employer interests rather than legitimate union job preservation goals.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Great Am. Indus., Inc.
  407 F.2d 453· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-23 ·cited 38×·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  Corporate officers and finders have a duty to disclose material information regarding finders' fees in securities transactions.
• Clairol Inc. v. The Gillette Co.
  389 F.2d 264· 2d Cir.· 1968-01-29 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a color designation, even if fanciful, is insufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction for trademark infringement unless it has acquired a secondary meaning indicating origin.
• Galt v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co.
  376 F.2d 711· 7th Cir.· 1967-04-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction restraining arbitration was an unwarranted interference with the arbitration process, whether governed by the Federal Arbitration Act or the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act.
• Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Shelley Knitting Mills, Inc.
  268 F.2d 569· 3d Cir.· 1959-07-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the District Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because there was insufficient evidence of irreparable injury to the plaintiff and the court failed to adequately balance the conveniences and potential injuries to
• R.R. Yardmasters of Am. v. Pa. R.R. Co.
  224 F.2d 226· 3d Cir.· 1955-07-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prevent injunctive relief when a carrier threatens to violate explicit provisions of the Railway Labor Act, and that a preliminary injunction was properly issued given serious doubts about the validity of a labor agreement and