Probability Of Success On The Merits

77 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc.
  640 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 179×
  The court adopts a new, third test for granting preliminary injunctions, aiming to provide clarity for district judges.
• William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., Inc.
  526 F.2d 86· 9th Cir.· 1975-11-28 ·cited 106×
  The court held that the district court erred by not considering the alternative test for granting a preliminary injunction, which allows for relief if serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant's favor, even without a high probability of
• Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz
  670 F.2d 440· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 104×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) should be construed narrowly, limiting appellate jurisdiction to review only independently appealable orders, not ancillary ones.
• Gulf & W. Indus., Inc. v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  476 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1973-03-12 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the consummation of a tender offer, as the plaintiff (A&P) demonstrated a probability of success on the merits regarding antitrust and securities law violations.
• Am. Hosp. Supply Corp. & Am. v. Mueller
  780 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 87×
  The court affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding that the distributor demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm due to the supplier's insolvency and that the district court properly balanced the harms.
• IIT v. Vencap, Ltd.
  519 F.2d 1001· 2d Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the district court's findings were insufficient to definitively determine subject matter jurisdiction or the probability of success on the merits for issuing a preliminary injunction.
• Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher
  605 F.2d 1130· 9th Cir.· 1979-10-04 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, but that the specific requirement to insert hyphens in written and oral references to the defendants' mark was an abuse of discretion and should be eliminated.
• Dopp v. Franklin Nat'l Bank
  461 F.2d 873· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-30 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his securities law claim or irreparable injury, thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Wright v. Rushen
  642 F.2d 1129· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 64×
  A preliminary injunction mandating extensive prison reforms must be set aside if the district court fails to apply the proper legal standards for assessing the plaintiffs' probability of success on the merits.
• Factors ETC., Inc. v. PRO Arts, Inc.
  579 F.2d 215· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-27 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the right of publicity for Elvis Presley survived his death and was validly transferred to Factors, and that Pro Arts' memorial poster was not privileged as a newsworthy event.
• Kampmeier v. Ewald Nyquist
  553 F.2d 296· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-15 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient factual showing of likely success on the merits to warrant preliminary relief, and thus affirmed the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Automatic Radio MFG. Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  390 F.2d 113· 1st Cir.· 1968-03-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a compelling case of immediate irreparable injury, which is necessary for granting a preliminary injunction.
• Dino DeLAURENTIIS Cinemato-Grafica v. D-150, Inc.
  366 F.2d 373· 2d Cir.· 1966-09-16 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the movant made a sufficient showing of probable success and possible irreparable injury to warrant a preliminary injunction, reversing the district court's denial.
• The Cont'l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp.
  614 F.2d 351· 3d Cir.· 1980-01-31 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the risk of inadvertent disclosure alone is insufficient to justify a preliminary injunction against employment, and that the non-competition covenant did not cover Grovijohn's role as a plant manager in manufacturing bottles.
• Chalk v. United States Dist. Court Cent. Dist. OF Cal.
  840 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction, finding that the teacher with AIDS demonstrated probable success on the merits and irreparable injury.
• 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.
• Filippo v. United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am.
  525 F.2d 508· 2d Cir.· 1975-10-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because no irreparable harm was shown, and affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the cause of action alleging an unlawful trusteeship under the LMRDA, as that issue required further fact
• Sanders v. AIR Line Pilots Ass'n
  473 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1972-12-04 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the requested injunctions were overly broad and failed to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d), and the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a high
• First Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc.
  809 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-06 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction for trade dress infringement, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits.
• Lopez v. Heckler
  713 F.2d 1432· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Secretary of Health and Human Services failed to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits or that the balance of hardships tipped in her favor, and therefore denied her request for a partial stay of a preliminary injunction.
• Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc.
  805 F.2d 351· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-13 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction because Tri-State demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, a public interest favoring the injunction, and raised serious questions going to t
• Prof'l Plan Exam'rs OF NEW Jersey, Inc. v. Lefante
  750 F.2d 282· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred by extending restraints without proper findings and by improperly abstaining from deciding federal constitutional and antitrust claims.
• M.M. Cassim, M.D. v. Bowen
  824 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-12 ·cited 25×
  A physician is not entitled to a full evidentiary hearing before suspension from Medicare, as the existing pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to respond, coupled with a right to a prompt post-deprivation hearing, satisfy due process.
• Randall v. Wyrick
  642 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction for alleged inadequate medical treatment is affirmed because the inmate failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or probable success on the merits.
• Civil Aeronautics Bd. v. Carefree Travel, Inc.
  513 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that referring the preliminary injunction question to a magistrate was proper under the circumstances, and the preliminary injunction was correctly issued.
• Lydo Enters., Inc. v. City OF LAS Vegas
  745 F.2d 1211· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the balance of hardships did not decidedly tip in favor of the appellees and they failed to present serious litigation questions regarding their First Amendment claims.
• Veronice A. Holt v. The Cont'l Grp., Inc.
  708 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of the complaint warranted further consideration, particularly regarding the issue of irreparable harm in a retaliatory discharge claim.
• John G. Bookout for Modern Home Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat'l Mortg. & Disc. Co., Inc.
  514 F.2d 757· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-01 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the appointment of a receiver pendente lite was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed the lower court's order.
• Kaplan v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City Sch. Dist. OF the City OF NEW York
  759 F.2d 256· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly denied appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction because they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
• Martin v. Int'l Olympic Comm.
  740 F.2d 670· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the California Civil Rights Act does not permit or require separate but equal accommodations, privileges, or services.
• Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc.
  729 F.2d 589· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction ordering the defendant to deliver seed corn, finding no abuse of discretion in granting the injunction.
• Moteles v. Univ. OF Pa. & Local 506
  730 F.2d 913· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-15 ·cited 18×
  The appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and that the district court erred in excluding evidence related to the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense. The court also noted that while
• Instant AIR Freight Co. v. C.F. AIR Freight, Inc.
  882 F.2d 797· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 17×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding irreparable harm and that injunctive relief was warranted.
• Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.
  414 F.2d 506· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-18 ·cited 17×
  A preliminary injunction should issue because there is a reasonable probability that the merger would create a market structure conducive to unlawful reciprocal dealing.
• N. Avondale Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cincinnati Metro. Hous. Auth.
  464 F.2d 486· 6th Cir.· 1972-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the appellants failed to show probable success on the merits and the housing project was substantially complete.
• Associated Gen. Contractors OF Cal., Inc. v. Coal. FOR Econ. Equity
  950 F.2d 1401· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-06 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court properly denied AGCC's request for preliminary injunctive relief because AGCC failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable harm.
• Md. Undercoating Co., Inc. v. Payne
  603 F.2d 477· 4th Cir.· 1979-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to balance the potential harm to the defendant with the potential harm to the plaintiff when granting a preliminary injunction and by incorrectly concluding that the defendant's new employer was in competition with the plain
• Garlock, Inc. v. United Seal Inc.
  404 F.2d 256· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Formax, Inc. v. Hostert
  841 F.2d 388· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of misappropriated manufacturing prints was an abuse of discretion.
• The Republic OF the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos
  818 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the preliminary injunction because the complaint failed to allege harm to the United States economy, which is required for RICO claims.
• Lynch Corp. v. Omaha Nat'l Bank
  666 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to prevent the bank from disbursing funds from an escrow account, as the buyer faced irreparable harm due to potential multiplicity of suits.
• Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Garrett J. Barry
  825 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding that the injunction was properly issued to protect the plaintiff's remedy and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• Senate OF THE State OF Cal. v. Mosbacher
  968 F.2d 974· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the preliminary injunction, leaving redistricting decisions to the states.
• The Video Trip Corp. v. Lightning Video, Inc.
  866 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly denied because significant contract disputes, including alleged breaches by the plaintiff, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding copyright ownership, precluding a finding of probable success on the merits.
• Pharm. Soc'y OF the State OF NEW York, Inc. v. Lefkowitz
  586 F.2d 953· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the basic requirements for such relief, including showing probable success on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Div. 580, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Cent. NEW York Reg'l Transp. Auth.
  556 F.2d 659· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Union failed to make a clear showing of probable success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions to warrant a preliminary injunction against Taylor Law fact-finding proceedings.
• State OF Me. v. FRI
  486 F.2d 713· 1st Cir.· 1973-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the EPA Administrator to allot funds to Maine, as the order was procedurally sound and preserved the possibility of effective final relief.
• Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCAIN Foods, Ltd.
  941 F.2d 970· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion, as the district court did not clearly err in its findings regarding probable success on the merits, the geographic scope, or the duration of the injunction.
• J.B.K., Inc. v. Caron
  600 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-14 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Missouri's prostitution statute was not an abuse of discretion.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. World Wide Factors, Ltd.
  882 F.2d 344· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the asset freeze and appointment of a special master were proper, the specific hourly rate limitations for attorney fees were arbitrary and required reconsideration.