Probability Of Success On The Merits

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

• Half Moon BAY Fishermans' Mktg. Ass'n v. Carlucci
  847 F.2d 1389· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, as the defendants had minimally complied with NEPA and MPRSA requirements for the initial dredging phase.
• Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Eden Servs.
  759 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in including northern Virginia in the exclusive territory and in requiring 150% commission, but did not abuse its discretion in enjoining the termination of the distributorship contract.
• Champion v. State OF Cal.
  738 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the deduction of fair share fees, as existing Supreme Court precedent generally upholds such deductions and the specific circumstances did not warrant extraordinary rel
• Seniors United FOR Action v. RAY
  635 F.2d 746· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion or erroneous legal premise.
• Bio-Medicus, Inc. v. S'holders Comm. IN Opposition TO the Mgmt. OF Bio-Medicus, Inc.
  608 F.2d 1155· 8th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctive relief, as plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or a balance of hardships tipping in their favor.
• Spencer Cos., Inc. v. Armonk Indus., Inc.
  489 F.2d 704· 1st Cir.· 1973-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the denial of a temporary restraining order, under the circumstances, was appealable as a denial of a preliminary injunction, but affirmed the denial of injunctive relief.
• AIR Line Pilots Ass'n v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
  898 F.2d 1393· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the classification of a labor dispute as "minor" under the Railway Labor Act is a jurisdictional issue, not a decision on the merits, and the district court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the employer's actions.
• Ne. Women's Ctr., Inc. v. McMONAGLE
  813 F.2d 53· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to make specific factual findings required by F.R.Civ.P. 52(a) when denying a preliminary injunction.
• Moore v. Curtis 1000, Inc.
  640 F.2d 920· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the restrictive covenant was likely unenforceable under Georgia law due to an overly broad subparagraph and Georgia's rejection of the 'blue-pencil theory'.
• Chart House, Inc. v. Bornstein
  636 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1980-12-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to a preliminary injunction as a matter of law, reversing the denial.
• WOE v. Neb. State Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  598 F.2d 1146· 8th Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 2×
  The court granted a stay of execution of a preliminary injunction pending appeal and expedited the appeal.
• Am. Brands, Inc. v. Playgirl, Inc.
  498 F.2d 947· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits or that irreparable harm would occur without the injunction.
• Automated Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Martin
  467 F.2d 1181· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's request for a preliminary injunction.
• Peyton v. Grant
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-12-31
  The court granted the motion to appoint a receiver, finding that the parties' inability to agree on company operations created imminent danger of harm to the business and their interests within it.
• Servidori v. Nomi Health, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-22
  The Court approved the FLSA collective settlement agreement, finding it fair and reasonable, but dismissed the case without prejudice for three opt-in plaintiffs who did not accept the settlement.
• P.C. Connection, Inc. v. Synygy Ltd.
  Del. Ch.· 2021-01-07
  The court granted Connection's request for a preliminary injunction, converting the existing status quo order into a preliminary injunction. This injunction will remain in effect until the earlier of the final disposition of the action or March 31, 2021, allowing Connection a rea
• Cnl-Ab LLC v. E. Prop. Fund I SPE (MS REF LLC
  Del. Ch.· 2011-01-28
  The court denied the investor's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction, finding the claim barred by laches due to unreasonable delay and prejudice to the opposing parties. Additionally, the court found the investor failed to demonstrate a probabi
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Bertucci's Rest. Corp.
  Del. Ch.· 2003-11-21
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff had not made a good faith effort to complete the permitting process. Specifically, the owner had not requested the necessary final inspections or paid outstanding sewer charges, which
• 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.
• SUN Newspapers, Inc. v. Omaha World-Herald Co.
  713 F.2d 428· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-11
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction, but modified its scope to preserve the status quo.
• Midkiff v. TOM
  704 F.2d 425· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-14
  The court denied the motion for an injunction to stay state judicial proceedings because the appellants failed to demonstrate immediate irreparable injury or extraordinary circumstances.
• McDONNELL v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
  703 F.2d 328· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-12
  The court affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Dataphase standard.
• Serv-Air v. Seamans
  473 F.2d 158· D.C. Cir.· 1972-11-20
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no probability of success on the merits for the plaintiff's claims regarding contract award procedures and wage compliance.
• Santos v. Bonanno
  369 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1966-12-06
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show probable success on the merits or irreparable injury.