-
805 F.2d 380·
Fed. Cir.·
1986-11-12
·cited 16×
The court held that a preliminary injunction must be vacated if the district court fails to hold a hearing, make findings of fact, and provide a statement of reasons as required by Rules 52 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-
905 F.2d 1355·
10th Cir.·
1990-06-04
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendant and did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, setting the bond amount, or denying a motion to transfer venue.
-
653 F. Supp. 86·
M.D. Fla.·
1986-05-19
·cited 10×
The court granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of confusion between the parties' products and trade dress, which constitutes irreparable injury.
-
889 F.2d 787·
8th Cir.·
1989-11-15
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider the amount of security required for a preliminary injunction and erred by issuing a preliminary injunction that effectively granted all relief sought without proper notice or considerat
-
245 F.2d 797·
3d Cir.·
1957-06-12
·cited 1×
The court ordered an injunction to maintain the status quo of union relations pending appeal, requiring security from all parties.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-10
The court held that the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied because it failed to comply with procedural requirements regarding notice, security, and the content of the supporting memorandum.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-09
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, alternative service, and expedited discovery.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-02-07
The court held that the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice due to failure to comply with procedural requirements.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-02
The court denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because she failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, demonstrate irreparable harm without an adequate legal remedy, provide for security, a
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-23
The court denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary injunction because it failed to comply with procedural rules and substantive requirements.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-08-14
The court held that the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction must be denied because they failed to comply with federal and local rules regarding notice and procedural requirements for such relief.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-05-01
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order due to multiple procedural deficiencies.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-27
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding a likelihood of success on the breach of contract claim regarding the Denton Franchise Agreement but not on trademark or FDUTPA claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-08
The court held that a motion for preliminary injunction must comply with local rules and that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm due to significant delay.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-03-31
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because it failed to comply with federal and local rules regarding notice, verification, security, and demonstrating imminent irreparable harm.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-03-19
The court granted a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the breach of contract claim due to the violation of an enforceable non-compete agreement.
-
749 F. Supp. 2d 1321·
N.D. Fla.·
2010-10-26
The court held that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that Florida law unconstitutionally prohibits spending contributions received and fully disclosed within five days before an election, but are unlikely to prevail on claims challenging disclosure of contributors,
-
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.