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

• Landmark Land Co., Inc. v. Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  990 F.2d 807· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-29
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the four criteria for preliminary injunctions and by not issuing its own findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• CPC Int'l, Inc. v. Blandito Food Distrib. Corp.
  835 F. Supp. 636· S.D. Fla.· 1993-04-28 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that CPC failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial threat of irreparable injury, thus denying its motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Town OF W. Hartford v. Operation Rescue
  991 F.2d 1039· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-21
  The court held that the district court's findings regarding animus and intent to inhibit rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) require reappraisal in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, and thus vacated the permanent injunction and remand
• Dist. 17 v. A & M Trucking
  991 F.2d 108· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-12
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to require security for the preliminary injunction and by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing as required by the Norris-La Guardia Act.
• Gilbert v. Crispus NIX
  990 F.2d 1044· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-09
  The appeal is moot because the correctional officers had already answered the questions, and no criminal charges were contemplated, rendering the injunction unnecessary.
• Daniel v. City of Tampa
  818 F. Supp. 1491· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-08
  The court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from arresting the plaintiff under the trespass-after-warning statute while he engages in door-to-door political expression during specific hours on public housing property.
• Coastal Fuels OF Puerto RICO, Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp.
  990 F.2d 25· 1st Cir.· 1993-04-06 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• In the Matter of: L & S Indus.
  989 F.2d 929· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-24
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's dismissal of claims against L & S Industries did not preclude the Stefans from asserting those claims in state court because there was no privity between them and the bankruptcy trustee. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's dec
• Waggoner v. Hastings
  816 F. Supp. 716· S.D. Fla.· 1993-03-23 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that the Constitution's Impeachment Clause does not mandate disqualification from future office upon conviction, and the Senate has discretion in imposing such a penalty.
• Walker v. Palm Beach Commerce Ctr. Associated, Ltd.
  614 So. 2d 1097· Fla.· 1993-03-11 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  Section 194.211 applies to the sale of tax certificates as well as tax deeds, and a taxpayer seeking to enjoin the collection of taxes pending a challenge to assessed valuation must show a substantial likelihood of success in the underlying tax suit—not merely a good faith paymen
• Metro Publ'g, Ltd. v. SAN Jose Mercury News
  987 F.2d 637· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-08
  The court held that the title of a newspaper column can acquire trademark status and be protected under the Lanham Act.
• Johnston-Loehner Ex Rel. Johnston-Loehner v. O'Brien
  837 F. Supp. 388· M.D. Fla.· 1993-02-18
  The court held that a preliminary injunction would not be granted because the school's policy regarding the distribution of literature was not definitively applied or violated in the student's specific case.
• JAK Prods. v. Wiza
  986 F.2d 1080· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-16
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was appropriate, but modified the definition of 'customers' to be those with an ongoing business relationship at the time of termination.
• State v. Calhoun Cnty.
  613 So. 2d 605· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-02-12 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida Department of Administration's Division of Retirement appealed a temporary injunction granted to Calhoun County. The court reversed the injunction for two specific time periods, finding the county failed to satisfy the legal requirements for obtaining a temporary inju
• Interboro Inst., Inc. v. Foley
  985 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1993-02-05
  The court held that Interboro received constitutionally adequate due process through its extensive written submissions and available post-deprivation remedies, and thus was not entitled to a preliminary injunction or an evidentiary hearing.
• Empire Blue Cross AND Blue Shield v. Janet Greeson's A Place FOR US, Inc.
  985 F.2d 459· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-02
  A federal court cannot grant an injunction to stay arbitration proceedings ordered by a state court, as such an order constitutes a state court proceeding protected by the Anti-Injunction Act.
• Nalco Chem. Co. v. Hydro Techs.
  984 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-25
  The court held that the non-compete and confidential information clauses in the employment agreements were overbroad and thus void and unenforceable under Wisconsin law.
• In re Guardianship OF Delphene Wengatz Brown v. Coppock
  611 So. 2d 1342· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-01-13 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the lower court had jurisdiction over the trustee and that the evidence supported the issuance of a temporary injunction.
• Fonar Corp. v. Deccaid Servs., Inc.
  983 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-11
  The court held that the preliminary injunction and contempt order were invalid due to vagueness and lack of specificity, violating Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d).
• The Dolphin Project, Inc. v. Ocean World, Inc.
  610 So. 2d 733· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-12-30 ·via Temporary Injunction
• Anago, Inc. v. Tecnol Med. Prods., Inc.
  976 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-30
  A target company must allege an antitrust injury, defined as an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, to obtain a preliminary injunction under the Clayton Act.
• Wang Zong Xiao v. Barr
  979 F.2d 151· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-30
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the alien failed to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging the INS's authority to initiate exclusion proceedings.
• Abernathy v. Walgreen Co.
  836 F. Supp. 817· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-16
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claim that disseminating confidential personnel records constituted protected activity under Title VII, and thus denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• King v. Innovation Books
  976 F.2d 824· 2d Cir.· 1992-10-01
  The court held that the possessory credit 'Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man' was a false attribution likely to cause confusion and harm, but the 'based upon' credit was permissible given the material similarities between the story and the film.
• Bourne Co. v. Tower Records, Inc.
  976 F.2d 99· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-29 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that a plaintiff's extensive delay in enforcing its rights rebuts the presumption of irreparable harm, even when asserting a new use of the copyrighted material.
• Local 217 v. MHM, Inc.
  976 F.2d 805· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-24 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that CCELP, not MHM, was the employer who ordered the plant closing under WARN, and thus CCELP is liable.
• Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander, Inc.
  974 F.2d 1020· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-10
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's decision, finding the settlement agreement's interpretation more plausible for Hall.
• Reverend Lavern G. Franzen v. Reverend George E. Poulos, Jr.
  604 So. 2d 1260· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-09-08 ·via Temporary Injunction
  A Florida court reversed a temporary injunction that restricted voting eligibility at a congregational meeting to remove an evangelical Lutheran minister. The court held that the First Amendment prohibits civil courts from intervening in the internal governance disputes of hierar
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Int'l Loan Network, Inc.
  968 F.2d 1304· D.C. Cir.· 1992-07-10
  The court held that the operation of ILN's investment programs constituted the fraudulent offer or sale of unregistered securities, and affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction.
• Sioux City Foundry Co. v. City OF S. Sioux City
  968 F.2d 777· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-10
  A municipality has the power to enter into a long-term contract for electricity rates, even if it also possesses legislative rate-setting authority, provided the contract is within its proprietary powers and not expressly prohibited by statute.
• Merch. & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Bldg. Prods. Co., Inc.
  963 F.2d 628· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-14
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly regarding the functionality of the product's design and the likelihood of confusion for the trademark
• Carteret Sav. Bank v. Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  963 F.2d 567· 3d Cir.· 1992-05-07
  The court held that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) was intended to abrogate prior agreements allowing the use of supervisory goodwill for regulatory capital, and thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Longstreth v. Maynard
  961 F.2d 895· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the appeals of Longstreth and Mosier were not moot despite policy changes, and that Justus's claim regarding the sincerity of his religious beliefs presented genuine issues of material fact requiring further proceedings.
• United OF Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Solomon
  960 F.2d 31· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court held that the state's actions did not deprive the plaintiff of a protected liberty or property interest under the Due Process Clause, and thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Donzi Marine Corp. v. Roscioli Int'l, Inc.
  596 So. 2d 146· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-03-18 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the trial court erred in issuing a temporary injunction that prohibited the defendant from initiating legal action to collect on a promissory note or foreclose on assets.
• B.R. Griffin v. Cloyce K. BOX
  956 F.2d 89· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-05
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs have no likelihood of prevailing on their waiver or estoppel theories regarding voting rights as transferees of partnership units.
• Hispanics FOR Fair AND Equitable Reapportionment (H-Fera) v. Griffin
  958 F.2d 24· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-27
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaints sua sponte without providing adequate notice and opportunity for the plaintiffs to oppose summary judgment.
• Drywall Tapers & Pointers OF Greater NEW York, Local 1974 OF I.B.P.A.T., AFL-CIO v. Local 530 OF Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons Int'l Ass'n
  954 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-14
  The court held that the district court did not err in issuing an area-wide preliminary injunction without an evidentiary hearing and that it had jurisdiction to do so, as administrative remedies had proven futile.
• Clipper Cruise Line, Inc. v. Star Clippers, Inc.
  952 F.2d 1046· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-03
  The court held that the term 'Clipper' is generic when used in relation to ships and cruise services, and therefore not protectable as a trademark.
• Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp.
  952 F.2d 802· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-24
  The Fourth Circuit reversed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court improperly balanced the hardships and likelihood of success, and that the plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
• BMG Music v. Edmundo Perez
  952 F.2d 318· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-24
  The court held that importing and selling copyrighted works manufactured abroad, even if acquired lawfully abroad, infringes copyright and is not protected by the first sale doctrine. The court also affirmed the contempt finding and sanctions.
• Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Sys. Council U-4 v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  784 F. Supp. 854· S.D. Fla.· 1991-12-16
  A union is not entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent employer layoffs and reassignments when the employer has broad management rights under the collective bargaining agreement and the potential harm to employees from layoffs and subsequent 'rolling' does not defeat the
• Diaz v. Timkee
  589 So. 2d 1020· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-11-26 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that the temporary injunction was carefully drawn and did not unduly restrict the appellant's freedom of movement, and that it lacked jurisdiction to review non-final orders.
• Burr Stafford v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  945 F.2d 803· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-07
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient allegations of diversity, and therefore the preliminary injunction must be vacated.
• The Miss Am. Org. v. Mattel, Inc.
  945 F.2d 536· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-25
  The court held that the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies with U.S. Customs before seeking judicial intervention precluded a preliminary injunction.
• Stringer-El v. Crispus C. NIX
  945 F.2d 1015· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-20
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, bound by precedent despite disagreement.
• Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc.
  944 F.2d 597· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-13
  The court held that the noncompetition covenant's geographic scope was reasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.
• The Conair Grp., Inc. v. Automatik Apparate-Maschinenbau GMBH
  944 F.2d 862· Fed. Cir.· 1991-09-11
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because it seriously misjudged the evidence regarding literal infringement and committed an error of law regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, failing to make adequate findings.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd.
  940 F.2d 536· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-06
  The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the National Labor Relations Board's decision to assert jurisdiction over United Tote, as such review is limited to courts of appeals.
• Lipper v. Kann
  582 So. 2d 815· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-24 ·via Temporary Injunction
  Arthur Lipper III appealed the denial of his motion to dissolve a temporary injunction, challenging the trial court's erroneous limitation of the burden of proof required to maintain the injunction. The appellate court held that the trial court incorrectly required only proof of