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

• Unisys Corp. v. Dataware Prods., Inc.
  848 F.2d 311· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-06
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to grant preliminary relief and did not abuse its discretion in doing so, as the bankruptcy trustee had abandoned the relevant causes of action.
• Pub. Serv. Co. OF NEW Hampshire v. Consol. Utils. & Commc'ns, Inc.
  846 F.2d 803· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-13
  The appeal from the preliminary injunctions is moot because PSNH's bankruptcy filing has rendered the issues academic and there is no reasonable expectation of recurrence.
• Dep't OF Corr. v. Croce
  520 So. 2d 695· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-03-02 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted because the appellee failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not demonstrate irreparable harm or lack of adequate legal remedies.
• Tetra Sales (U.S.A.) v. T.F.H. Publ'ns, Inc.
  839 F.2d 881· 2d Cir.· 1988-02-03
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was too indefinite regarding inventory violations and vacated that portion, while affirming the injunction as to other violations of the settlement agreement.
• Martinez v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  675 F. Supp. 1574· M.D. Fla.· 1987-12-23
  The court held that the potential harm to others from returning Eliana Martinez to a classroom setting outweighed the plaintiff's interests, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Mitson v. Coler
  674 F. Supp. 851· S.D. Fla.· 1987-12-01
  The court held that unreimbursed medical expense portions of Veterans Administration Improved Pensions (VAIP) should not be counted as income for determining Medicaid Institutional Care Payments (ICP) eligibility.
• Soc'y OF Prof'l Journalists v. The Sec'y OF Labor
  832 F.2d 1180· 10th Cir.· 1987-10-30
  The court should not address the merits of the case because it is moot, as the challenged action was too short to be fully litigated and there is no reasonable expectation of recurrence.
• Baldomero Arbona Torres v. Awilda Aponte Roque
  831 F.2d 26· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-16
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding sufficient evidence that plaintiffs' political affiliation was a substantial factor in their non-reappointment and that defendants failed to prove the non-renewals would have occurred regardless of political affiliation.
• United States v. Lehder-Rivas
  669 F. Supp. 1563· M.D. Fla.· 1987-09-18
  The court held that a defendant's First Amendment rights to conduct a jury profile survey must yield to the government's compelling interest in ensuring a fair trial, especially when the survey poses a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
• Beeler v. State
  513 So. 2d 710· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-09-17 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of motions to dissolve a temporary injunction and appointment of a receiver that were granted without notice to the appellants in a securities fraud investigation. The court held that the State failed to
• Ins. Corp. OF Am. v. State
  509 So. 2d 1235· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-07-08 ·via Temporary Injunction
• Hekimian Labs., Inc. v. Domain Sys., Inc.
  664 F. Supp. 493· S.D. Fla.· 1987-06-23
  The court held that the restrictive covenant in Boyer's employment contract was enforceable, granting HLI's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Peninsula Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n. v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins.
  663 F. Supp. 506· S.D. Fla.· 1987-06-11
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over claims that integrally involve adversarial rights arising during a receivership, even if they also involve pre-receivership claims, and therefore, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required.
• Bentley v. Levine
  507 So. 2d 1204· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-06-03 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted when the complaint sought only money damages and lacked a prayer for equitable relief.
• In re Caribbean Tubular Corp. v. Herminio Fernandez Torrecillas
  813 F.2d 533· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·via Motion For Preliminary Injunction
  The appellate court held that the district court lacked appellate jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the underlying proceeding rendered the interlocutory appeal moot, and therefore the appellate court also lacked jurisdiction.
• Lloyd Citrus Trucking, Inc. v. Treesweet Prods., Inc.
  53 F. Supp. 1009· S.D. Fla.· 1987-03-10 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that citrus fruit and products are not covered by Fla.Stat. § 713.62, and therefore, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for lien foreclosure or injunctive relief.
• Condos. ON the Intracoastal Ass'n, Inc. v. Barnett Bank OF Palm Beach Cnty.
  502 So. 2d 84· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-02-11 ·via Temporary Injunction
  The court held that a temporary injunction was improperly granted because the alleged injury was speculative and contingent, and the mortgagee failed to prove the essential elements for such relief.
• United States v. Harth
  527 F. Supp. 587· S.D. Fla.· 1987-02-09
  The court held that the defendant's consent to search his boat was voluntary, and therefore the motion to suppress the seized cocaine should be denied.
• Fran Welch Real Est. Sales, Inc. v. The Seabrook Island Co., Inc.
  809 F.2d 1030· 4th Cir.· 1987-01-20
  The court held that prohibiting commercial signs on properties and a limited visitor access policy for real estate agents did not constitute unreasonable restraints of trade under the Sherman Act. A prior policy of refusing purchaser referrals from brokers with listings was a uni
• Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Beemik Builders & Constructors, Inc.
  500 So. 2d 329· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-12-30 ·via Temporary Injunction
• Cnty. Sanitation Dist. NO. 2 OF LOS Angeles Cnty. v. Inland Container Corp.
  803 F.2d 1074· 9th Cir.· 1986-11-04
  The court held that the District's suit seeking equitable relief was inequitable because it failed to join an indispensable party (Chino) and attempted to circumvent a mandatory arbitration clause.
• Floralife, Inc. v. Floraline Int'l, Inc.
  807 F.2d 518· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-31
  A stipulation resolving a trademark dispute, which outlines the gist of a consent order, allows the district court to formulate the exact language of the injunction to ensure its effectiveness.
• Adams v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n OF the Supreme Court OF Ill.
  801 F.2d 968· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·via Preliminary Injunction Requirements
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the Illinois rule prohibiting targeted direct mail advertising by attorneys likely violates the First Amendment, and the district court's findings were entitled to deference.
• Dupont v. Karin Saunders
  800 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-08 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Megaphone Co. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  361 F.2d 857· S.D. Fla.· 1986-09-03
• Salyers v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  798 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1986-08-20
  The court held that intervening judicial and administrative developments mooted the plaintiffs' claims for class declaratory and injunctive relief.
• Lizabeth Carlson and Curtis Carlson v. Calusa Golf Inc.
  498 So. 2d 461· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-08-12
  The court held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment because the undisputed evidence showed the fence served a useful purpose, negating the claim that spite alone was the motivation.
• Berry v. Bean
  796 F.2d 713· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-31
  A base commander has broad authority to exclude civilians from his command area for non-arbitrary reasons, and a preliminary injunction should not be granted if the plaintiff has no chance of success on the merits.
• Sims Varner & Assocs., Inc. v. Blanchard
  794 F.2d 1123· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-08
  The court held that it had interlocutory jurisdiction over certain portions of the district court's orders denying injunctive relief, but affirmed those denials due to the contractor's substantial completion of the work and the plaintiff's delay in seeking equitable relief.
• Schwarz v. Hosp. Corp. of Am.
  506 F. Supp. 244· S.D. Fla.· 1986-05-27 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
• United States v. Nelson
  506 F. Supp. 883· S.D. Fla.· 1986-05-21 ·via Preliminary Injunction Standard
• Roghan v. Block
  790 F.2d 540· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-14
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Neurological Assocs. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.
  632 F. Supp. 1078· S.D. Fla.· 1986-04-29
  The court held that the action was improperly removed because the state court lacked jurisdiction over claims arising under the Medicare Act, and thus, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, the federal court also lacked jurisdiction.
• Sealy Mattress Co. OF Mich. v. Sealy
  789 F.2d 582· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-29
  The dissenting judge believes the majority misinterpreted the consent decree by focusing on its purposes rather than its plain language, and that the decree should be modified, not construed, to limit its scope.
• Gallanosa v. United States
  785 F.2d 116· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-27
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Gallanosas failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and the citizen child's medical needs did not present a substantial constitutional question to confer jurisdiction.
• Brant v. United States Polo Assoc.
  631 F. Supp. 71· S.D. Fla.· 1986-02-24
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof for preliminary injunctive relief, as the suspension did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under a rule of reason analysis.
• Hazel v. GAY & Petway Ins., Inc.
  482 So. 2d 536· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-02-04
  A former insurance agent was found to have violated a preliminary injunction prohibiting contact with and solicitation of the employer's customers. The appellate court affirmed the contempt finding but reversed the trial court's overly broad advisory construction of the injunctio
• White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.
  781 F.2d 1224· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-29
  The court affirmed the district court's decision to vacate the preliminary injunction, finding that the amended acquisition agreement sufficiently ensured Emerson's independence and viability as a competitor, thus eliminating anti-competitive concerns.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Kroger Co.
  778 F.2d 1161-1171· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-10
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale of stores pending arbitration, as the union failed to demonstrate sufficient equitable grounds.
• Lakeshore Terminal & Pipeline Co. v. Def. Fuel Supply Ctr. & Mil. Traffic Mgmt. Command
  777 F.2d 1171· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-05
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court.
• Braman Motors, Inc. v. Ward
  479 So. 2d 225· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-12-03
  Braman Motors appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent a former employee from soliciting Rolls Royce customers using a confidential customer list developed over years at significant expense. The court reversed, finding Braman demonstrated a reasonable lik
• Nat'l Elevator Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Union OF Elevator Constructors, AFL-CIO
  776 F.2d 374· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-08
  The court held that the union's actions constituted an arbitrable grievance and a strike, justifying injunctive relief under the Boys Market exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act. However, the International Union was improperly included in the injunction.
• United States v. State OF Or.
  769 F.2d 1410· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-29
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of certain fishing regulations, finding they violated the Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
• S.E.L. Maduro (Florida), Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n
  765 F.2d 1057· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-16
  The court held that the prior New York litigation, affirmed by the Second Circuit, had a preclusive effect on the current dispute, requiring vacatur of the preliminary injunction.
• Bell v. Streetwise Records, Ltd.
  761 F.2d 67· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-08
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing both parties to use the trade name and in concluding ownership solely based on public association without considering all circumstances.
• 754 Orange AVE., Inc. v. City OF W. Haven
  761 F.2d 105· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-30
  The court held that the City's zoning and licensing ordinances, as applied to the plaintiff's adult bookstore, were likely unconstitutional due to vagueness, overbreadth, and impermissible prior restraint on First Amendment expression, warranting a preliminary injunction.
• LaROUCHE v. State Bd. OF Elections
  758 F.2d 998· 4th Cir.· 1985-04-04
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction to place LaRouche's name on the ballot because he failed to meet federal requirements for matching funds, which North Carolina incorporated into its ballot access statute.
• United States v. Viomar Co.
  616 F. Supp. 24· S.D. Fla.· 1985-03-21
  The court held that the movant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a valid gift, specifically regarding the essential element of delivery of the deeds, and therefore denied the motion to release property from the restraining order.
• Roland v. AIR Line Emps. Ass'n
  753 F.2d 1385· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-29
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief to dissolve the trusteeships, as the ALEA president had reasonable grounds to believe a legitimate emergency existed.
• Butts v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
  751 F.2d 609· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-20
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the NCAA bylaw, as the appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits.