SUNTRUST BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE STEPHENS MITCHELL TRUSTS F.B.O. EUGENE MUSE MITCHELL AND JOSEPH REYNOLDS MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
PER CURIAM: It is manifest that the entry of a preliminary injunction in this copyright case was an abuse of discretion in that it represents an unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. While it falls within the district court’s discretion to grant a preliminary injunction, see Mitek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., Inc., 198 F. 3d 840, 842 (11th Cir.1999), “[t]he district court does not exercise unbridled discretion.” Canal Authority of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F. 2d 567, 572 (5th Cir.1974); Nnadi v. Richter, 976 F. 2d 682, 690 (11th Cir.1992).
Plainly, it must exercise that discretion in light of what we have termed the “four prerequisites for the extraordinary relief of preliminary injunction.” West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan, 689 F. 2d 950, 956 (11th Cir.1982) (quoting Canal Authority, 489 F. 2d at 572.).
The prerequisites are: (1) that there is a substantial likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) that there is a substantial threat plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to the defendant; and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Warren Publ’g, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp., 115 F. 3d 1509, 1516 (11th Cir.1997).
We add that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly, carries its burden of persuasion on each of these prerequisites. Canal Authority, 489 F. 2d at 573. After thorough review of the entire record, we have concluded that Appellee Sun Trust has failed to make this critical showing, that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction, and that its ruling amounts to an unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment.
Accordingly, we VACATE forthwith the prelimináry injunction of the district court. A comprehensive opinion of the court will follow. It is so ORDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001)…m [GWTW]', (3) copies and summarizes famous scenes and other elements of the plot from [GWTW]; and (4) copies verbatim dialogues and descriptions from [GWTW].” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 136 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1364 (N.D.Ga.2001), vacated, 252 F. 3d 1165 (11th Cir.2001). DefendanNAppellant Houghton Mifflin, the publisher of TWDG, does not contest the first three allegations, but nonetheless argues that there is no substantial similarity between the two works or, in the alternative, that the doctri…1 / 3
-
DOW Jones & Co., Inc. v. Kaye, 256 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001)…id nothing for a year and that this kind of case is not inherently one capable of repetition yet evading review. . We note that appeals on expedited review may be resolved in relatively short order. See, e.g., Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F. 3d 1165 (11th Cir.2001) (expedited appeal reversing grant of preliminary injunction 35 days after district court issued order). ■ . We note that generally district court decisions are only persuasive authority and have no binding precedential authority bey…
-
GEORGIACARRY.ORG, Inc. v. The U.S. Army Corps OF Eng'rs, 788 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015)…1262-63 (11th Cir.2004). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries its burden of persuasion on each of these prerequisites.” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F. 3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam). In analyzing a Second Amendment claim, this Court has followed a two-step analysis: “first, we ask if the restricted activity is protected by the Second Amendment in the first place; and then, if necessary, we .…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974)
- W. Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan, 689 F.2d 950 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Warren Publ'g, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp., 115 F.3d 1509 (11th Cir. 1997)
- Nnadi v. Richter, 976 F.2d 682 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Mitek Holdings v. Arce Eng'g Co., 198 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 1999)