63 results for 'cat:"Contract" AND cat:"Injunction"'.
J. Bokor finds the trial court did not err in denying the condo owner an injunction to force the condo association to repair water, mold and termite damages at its property. Nothing in the record suggests the trial court abused its discretion in finding, in part, that ordering the repairs was premature because the root of the water infiltration issues had not been determined and there was no evidence of an ongoing termite infestation. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Bokor, Filed On: May 29, 2024, Case #: 21-2366, Categories: Property, contract, injunction
J. Clay finds the lower court erroneously granted the seatbelt assembly company's motion for a preliminary injunction to require the automotive parts manufacturer to continue supplying parts under a series of purchase orders. The orders do not specify a certain quantity of goods to be delivered and, therefore, are not enforceable contracts. As a result, the assembly company is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its breach of contract counterclaim and the injunction is vacated. Reversed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Clay, Filed On: May 29, 2024, Case #: 23-1752, Categories: contract, injunction
J. Rowe finds the trial court properly granted injunctive relief to a local oil and gas company to enforce its preferential right to purchase certain mineral interests offered by BP as part of a package to a third party. The court granted the company's request, enjoining BP from selling the interests pending trial and the appeals court reversed the injunction, finding the evidence did not show a likelihood of success on the merits. No legal precedent exists addressing whether the value allocated to individual interests subject to a preferential right to purchase sold as part of a package deal must be determined in good faith. The trial court's injunction is not clearly contrary to law. Vacated.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court, Judge: Rowe, Filed On: May 21, 2024, Case #: 120969, Categories: Energy, contract, injunction
J. Fitzgerald grants in part wholesale seller companies' motion for permanent injunction against an eyedrop manufacturer, alleging unlawful price discrimination and unfair competition. The wholesale sellers claim that the eyedrop company was selling its product to competitors at a lower price. The jurors unanimously agreed that the wholesale sellers showed that the price differences for the eyedrops did not serve as a functional discount. Injunctive relief is warranted based on the jury's verdict and consideration of equitable factors. The eyedrop company is required to submit a semi-annual report to ensure compliance with the injunction.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Fitzgerald, Filed On: May 20, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv6809, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Unfair Competition, contract, injunction
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Guerra finds that the trial court properly granted an amended temporary injunction in an action over the alleged violation of a non-compete agreement. The injunction, which forbids the nurse practitioner from working as a nurse practitioner in a medical environment within a 20-mile radius of the business that she sold. There is sufficient evidence that the nurse practitioner has caused irreparable harm by working within one mile of her former business and diverting her patients to her new practice. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Guerra, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 01-23-00482-CV, Categories: contract, injunction
J. Tunheim denies the subcontractor's motion for a preliminary injunction in its action seeking relief from participating in arbitration in a dispute related to two purported contracts. The subcontractor's contention that its president's signature was forged on one of the contracts is "too flimsy" to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, and metadata suggesting that, as it claims, a document in the second contract was improperly backdated is better supported but still insufficient to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. The subcontractor has also failed to establish that it risks irreparable harm absent an injunction, and the balance-of-harms and public-interest factors are both neutral.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 0:24cv585, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, contract, injunction
J. Pitman denies an entrepreneur’s motion to vacate a temporary injunction after she was sued by her former business partner, who accused her of misappropriating company assets, including a professional Instagram account, to create a competing personal development company. The woman being sued argued she had not received proper service about the injunction, but this court “will not dissolve the [injunction] in this case based on the incorrect argument that service of process is a prerequisite.”
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pitman, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 1:24cv382, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: contract, injunction
J. Peterson finds in favor of the farm equipment retailer in a lawsuit it filed asking for an injunction to block the tractor manufacturer from terminating the retailer's dealership agreement due to lagging sales in its Wisconsin market share. The retailer has shown a likelihood of success on the merits under Wisconsin's Fair Dealership Law and potential irreparable harm to its business if the dealership agreement is terminated while the lawsuit is pending, so it is entitled to a preliminary injunction. The manufacturer is enjoined from terminating the agreement, but the parties will be given until April 26, 2024, to submit briefs making arguments for the proper amount of bond the retailer should put up to secure the injunction, in part because the manufacturer's ask for a $2.4 million bond is based on projected losses that are not credible.
Court: USDC Western District of Wisconsin, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 3:24cv23, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: contract, injunction
J. Oxley finds that a construction company was improperly awarded restitution after prevailing in claims concerning the construction of a children's hospital at the University of Iowa because other more appropriate avenues for perusing reimbursement existed after the lower court overturned an injunction awarded to the university. Reversed in part.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court, Judge: Oxley, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 23-0239, Categories: contract, injunction
J. Graham grants, in part, the cell tower operator's motion for summary judgment, ruling the property owner's placement of a padlock on the gate to bar access to the cell tower is undoubtedly a breach of the parties' lease agreement, while the potential loss of cell service or subscribers is sufficient to prove damages. Therefore, the tower operator is entitled to an injunction to require the property owner to remove the padlock and allow unfettered access to the tower.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Graham, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv764, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Property, contract, injunction
J. Bradberry finds that the trial court improperly denied the contractor's motion for a preliminary injunction against the construction company in their dispute about the arbitration clause in their contract. There are several indicators that the contract and the construction company did not fully finalize the disputed subcontract, and the trial court wrongfully held that the contractor's estimator had the authority to bind the contractor to the subcontract. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Bradberry, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: CA-23-557, Categories: Arbitration, contract, injunction
J. Nalbandian vacates the lower court's injunction against an insurance firm's former employee, finding the court failed to conduct the four-step analysis required under the Ohio Supreme Court's 1975 ruling in Raimonde v. Van Vlerah when it determined whether the insurance firm's non-solicitation agreement was enforceable. Although the client information taken by the employee was properly deemed a trade secret, the injunction's reliance on references to the non-solicitation agreement renders it defective.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-3638, Categories: Trade Secrets, contract, injunction
J. Robinson denies a roof contractor's motion for preliminary injunction concerning tortious interference claims against a business rival. The business rival, who won the contract for a drinking reservoir project, sufficiently showed in court that it did not mislead the city with its qualification package and submitted bids.
Court: USDC Kansas, Judge: Robinson, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv2339, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Construction, contract, injunction
J. Murphy finds the trial court improperly denied the refrigeration installer's request for a preliminary injunction. The installer alleges a noncompete agreement was violated by the other refrigeration equipment installer. The circuit court erroneously failed to consider Arkansas Code's covenant-not-to-compete statute as it relates to what constitutes irreparable harm. Reversed in part.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Murphy , Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: CV-23-158, Categories: Due Process, contract, injunction
J. Fitzgerald finds that the trial court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction that bars the former employee from competing with his former company. The noncompetition provision is not valid since it is ambiguous and overly broad. Also, the former employer failed to prove the "existence of legally protectable trade secrets and proprietary information." Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Fitzgerald, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: CA-23-615, Categories: Employment, contract, injunction
J. Starr denies a preliminary injunction to a franchisee of Pizza Hut that owns 142 restaurants; Pizza Hut seeks to terminate the franchise agreements, claiming the franchisee breached a forbearance agreement. The franchisee does not deny that they breached the forbearance agreement, nor provide evidence that Pizza Hut breached the agreement, making their claims unlikely to succeed and disqualifying them from a preliminary injunction.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Starr, Filed On: April 2, 2024, Case #: 3:24cv646, NOS: Franchise - Contract, Categories: Interference With contract, contract, injunction
J. Frimpong grants a company that ships and sells perishable agricultural commodities' application for a temporary restraining order in a contract dispute with a wholesale commission merchant that allegedly has not paid for shipments. The company has provided evidence that the merchant has had its Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) license suspended for non-payment and that their PACA trust assets are depleting. The commission merchant is enjoined from transferring proceeds from sales of any or all existing or future inventories of food pending the hearing on the company's motion for preliminary injunction.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv2307, NOS: Agricultural Acts - Other Suits, Categories: Agriculture, contract, injunction
J. Brnovich rules a business leads company may pursue a preliminary injunction against a social media marketing firm. The business leads company sufficiently showed in court that the marketing firm violated a franchise owner agreement by affixing the leads company's logo on the side of his boat without permission, and then added the word "just" in front of "LeTip" in order to be vulgar and to share it on social media.
Court: USDC Arizona, Judge: Brnovich, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv165, NOS: Franchise - Contract, Categories: contract, injunction
J. Scales finds the trial court improperly denied the boat manufacturer's motion to intervene in its competitor's lawsuit alleging breaches of a former employee's non-confidentiality agreement once he was hired by the manufacturer. The manufacturer should have been allowed to intervene in the injunction proceeding on due process grounds, in part because it had an interest in the litigation because the employee was enjoined from working for it. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Scales, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 23-0882, Categories: contract, injunction
J. Tostrud denies the medical device maker's motion for a preliminary injunction in its suit against its former U.K. distributor. The device maker has not demonstrated that its agreement with the distributor prohibits the distributor from selling its remaining inventory, nor has it shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the distributor is not prevented from selling that inventory.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tostrud, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 0:23cv3709, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: contract, injunction
J. Males finds a lower court improperly dismissed a derma med practice's motion for a restraining order against a aesthetics physician. The aesthetics physician argued that the derma med practice wrongfully obtained an injunction against it. However, the practice sufficiently showed in court that the owner was diverting customers to his business, in violation of the parties' agreement, and used its confidential information to do so. Reversed.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Males, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-2335, Categories: Restraining Order, contract, injunction
J. Cadish finds the district court properly granted the plastic surgeon's motion for a preliminary injunction. The doctor sought the injunction to prevent a former employer from enforcing a noncompete clause and presented sufficient evidence to show entitlement to relief from enforcement of the overbroad clause. His previous employer's customers were primarily from a different city where the doctor intended to open his private practice. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Cadish , Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 85288, Categories: contract, injunction