Request For Preliminary Injunction

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

• Checker Motors Corp. v. Chrysler Corp. & Chrysler Motors Corp.
  405 F.2d 319· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-06 ·cited 90×
  The court held that Chrysler's rebate plan was not per se illegal price-fixing under the Sherman Act and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction.
• Monahan v. State OF Neb.
  645 F.2d 592· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-01 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while a preliminary injunction was warranted for Rose due to potential conflict between state and federal law, the ordered second hearing was vacated due to changed circumstances, and Monahan was not entitled to preliminary relief as he failed to show irrepara
• Caulfield v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF NEW York
  583 F.2d 605· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against the collection of ethnic data, but erred in sua sponte remanding the case to HEW for further administrative proceedings.
• 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.
• DeBREMAECKER v. Short
  433 F.2d 733· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-03 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the class action but vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings due to a new ordinance.
• Shinto Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Fibrex & Shipping Co., Inc.
  572 F.2d 1328· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the appellee did not waive its right to arbitration by taking depositions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
• Baldwin Metals Co., Inc. v. Donovan
  642 F.2d 768· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 27×
  Federal district courts should not exercise jurisdiction to invalidate OSHA search warrants or suppress evidence before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) has rendered a final administrative decision, as parties must exhaust administrative remedies and e
• Bradley v. Milliken
  433 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Section 12 of Michigan Act 48 is unconstitutional as it violates the Fourteenth Amendment by impeding the Detroit Board of Education's efforts to achieve racial balance in schools. The court also reversed the dismissal of the Governor and Attorney General as p
• Wagner Seed Co. (a subsidiary of Wagner Bros. Feed Corp.) v. Daggett
  800 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the EPA's administrative order on its merits before an enforcement action, and that Wagner's constitutional claims were without merit.
• Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Wash. Terminal Co.
  473 F.2d 1156· D.C. Cir.· 1972-12-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the dispute over the assignment of incidental work is a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, and therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, not the district court.
• Raymon and Joann Lynch v. Rank
  747 F.2d 528· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Pickle amendment requires states to apply a 'but for' test to determine eligibility, meaning individuals are eligible for Medicaid if they would qualify for SSI but for OASDI cost-of-living increases, regardless of other reasons for past SSI ineligibility.
• Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54 v. Danziger
  709 F.2d 815· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the cross-appeals and vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction, remanding for further proceedings.
• Hoffritz v. United States
  240 F.2d 109· 9th Cir.· 1956-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a hearing where a genuine issue of fact existed regarding the legality of evidence seizure, and that the appeal was not moot.
• Modern Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc.
  871 F.2d 734· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a choice of law provision in a franchise agreement may be unenforceable if it violates a fundamental public policy of the state with a materially greater interest in the transaction, even if the chosen state has a substantial relationship to the parties.
• Pharmadyne Labs., Inc. v. Kennedy
  596 F.2d 568· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that district courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin the FDA from carrying out multiple seizure actions under 21 U.S.C.A. § 334, as the seizure action itself is the exclusive forum for resolving disputes.
• Croskey St. Concerned Citizens v. Romney
  459 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction against the construction of a low-rent housing project.
• Opticians Ass'n OF Am. v. Indep. Opticians OF Am.
  920 F.2d 187· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction because the trademark registrations were incontestable and the defendant failed to present a valid defense, thus the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm.
• Hamid R. Kashani v. Nelson
  793 F.2d 818· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 12×
  The district court correctly dismissed the complaint because it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Director's denial of an individual asylum application, as such review would permit dilatory tactics contrary to congressional intent.
• Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle
  641 F.2d 104· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Chevron does not possess a property right in the test data submitted to the EPA, either under federal law or state law, that would prevent the agency from using such data internally for registration purposes.
• M. G. Davis & Co., Inc. v. Cohen
  369 F.2d 360· 2d Cir.· 1966-11-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction in instituting proceedings against the appellants, and the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
• Leonard v. Floretta McKENZIE
  869 F.2d 1558· D.C. Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Prospect Learning Center was an appropriate educational placement for Brandon and that the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction.
• Bean v. Indep. Am. Sav. Ass'n
  838 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted pending appeal to prevent foreclosure, as the appellant is likely to succeed on the merits of their jurisdictional argument.
• Zenith Radio Corp. v. The United States
  710 F.2d 806· Fed. Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court must reconsider Zenith's motion for a preliminary injunction, evaluating all factors, not just irreparable harm.
• S. E. Human Dev. Corp. v. Schweiker
  687 F.2d 1150· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that South Dakota failed to comply with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981's requirements for timely submission of reports and holding public hearings for community service block grant funds. Consequently, the Secretary was obligated to distribute funds
• Layne-Western Co., Inc. v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, AFL-CIO
  650 F.2d 155· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the interpretation of which contributions are due under the collective bargaining agreement is an arbitrable issue, but the determination of delinquency based on those contributions is for the trustees. The court also held that the issuance of a preliminary in
• Vaughn C. Payne, Sr. v. Gus F. Koehler
  225 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1955-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying a motion for rehearing is not an appeal from a final decision and thus the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.
• Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.
  986 F.2d 1252· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 6×
  The National Mediation Board's proposed notice, stating it found the carrier unlawfully interfered with employee representation choice, exceeded its statutory authority by acting as an adjudicator rather than an investigator.
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. United States
  927 F.2d 1253· D.C. Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, thus affirming the denial of their request for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Title VI of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
• UST, Inc. v. The United States
  831 F.2d 1028· Fed. Cir.· 1987-10-15 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable injury from being required to answer questionnaires.
• Outboard Marine Corp. v. Thomas
  773 F.2d 883· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the EPA lacked statutory authority under CERCLA to obtain an administrative warrant for preliminary design and surveying activities on private property when no emergency existed.
• Huseman v. Finch
  424 F.2d 1237· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the appellants had not exhausted their administrative remedies as a hearing was still pending.
• Am. Trading Transp. Co., Inc. v. United States
  791 F.2d 942· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Maritime Administration (MarAd) did not err in permitting temporary transfers of subsidized oil tankers into the Alaskan oil trade, as the agency adequately considered the arguments of domestic carriers.
• NO East-West Hwy. Comm., Inc. v. Chandler
  767 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the highway project was a modernization of an existing road and not a "major Federal action" requiring an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA.
• Harris v. United States
  745 F.2d 535· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm, as adequate remedies exist in the Court of Claims.
• Tenant Affairs Bd. v. Pierce
  693 F.2d 797· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the district court's determination of no irreparable harm.
• Karpinski v. Resor
  419 F.2d 531· 3d Cir.· 1969-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellant must exhaust administrative remedies by reporting for duty and undergoing a physical examination. The court also held that the statutory authority to extend active duty beyond enlistment for nat
• Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Dist. of Columbia v. Cap. Transit Co.
  214 F.2d 242· D.C. Cir.· 1954-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court granted an injunction pending appeal, enjoining the company from paying a dividend and redeeming bonds, pending further investigation and report.
• Women's Emergency Network v. Bush
  191 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because they failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of imminent harm or that the court had authority to enjoin the actions of the named defendants.
• Goforth v. Poythress
  638 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 2×
  A state statute requiring sheriffs to possess a high school diploma or its equivalent does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Isiah Fredericks v. Kreps
  571 F.2d 1316· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-12 ·cited 2×
• United Transp. Union E v. Burlington N., Inc.
  470 F.2d 813· 8th Cir.· 1972-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the dispute was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and that injunctive relief was not warranted pending the Board's decision.
• Equal Ground Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of State
  Fla.· 2026-06-10
  The Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a constitutional writ to intervene in a First District Court of Appeal's pending appeal of a trial court's order denying a temporary injunction, as the doctrine of all writs does not provide an independent basis for the Court'
• Bottom Line Sys. LLC v. Miller
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-19
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
• Bldg. Resilient Infrastructure & Developing Greater Equity, Inc. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau & Russell Vought
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-03
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury.
• Steward Health Care Sys. LLC v. C.A. No. 2022-0289-Sg Tenet Bus. Servs. Corp.
  Del. Ch.· 2022-08-01
  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, requiring the defendants to continue providing services under the Transition Services Agreement (TSA). This relief was conditioned upon the plaintiffs posting a $2.8 million monthly surety bond. The court foun
• Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-04
  The court held that a request for an injunction to stay a state foreclosure sale was denied because the plaintiff failed to meet procedural requirements and demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, and because the Anti-Injunction Act barred such relief.
• Fla. Ass'n of Prof'l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Div. of Legis. Info. Servs. of the Fla. Off. of Legis. Servs.
  431 F. Supp. 2d 1228· N.D. Fla.· 2006-05-12
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment.
• 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.
• Scott v. Iron Workers Local 118, Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO
  928 F.2d 863· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the Ringsby exception and did not err in refusing to vacate its prior order when the appellant intentionally mooted the appeal to avoid the preclusive effect of the judgment.
• Parker v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  879 F.2d 1362· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-13
  The court held that borrowers of FmHA guaranteed loans are not third-party beneficiaries of the lender's agreement with FmHA and thus do not have a right to appeal FmHA decisions regarding foreclosure or loan servicing.