green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 41×
172.6 score
G Cite
cited 25× by 25 distinct cases, 2019–2026 · 6 courts ·
…party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
at p. 471
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Abdul Love v. Christine Brown, Percy Myers, Latoya Hughes, Christel Crow, John Barwick, Kristen Rae Betz, and Nader Dababneh
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Green v. Garza
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hardy v. Pritzker
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Semons v. Utter
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Walls v. Thompson
a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Roberson v. Wills
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Williams v. Wills
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Reynolds v. Barnes Jewish Healthcare Corporation
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Thompson v. Monti
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
PULLINS v. ELDRIDGE
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Austin v. Rhoades
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Curry v. Butler
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
New York Times Company v. Defense Health Agency
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gakuba v. Swells
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Daker v. Head
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Thornton v. Doe
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Carter v. Matushak
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Miller v. Whitman
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Majid v. Means
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ybarra v. Indiana Dep't of Corrections
thus, a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wilson v. Baldwin
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
FRAZIER v. CARTER
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Dunlap v. Illinois Department of Corrections
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pipeline Productions, Inc. v. S&A Pizza, Inc.
a court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's merits.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Boles v. Colorado Department of Corrections
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
although these new assertions might support additional claims against the same prison officials, they cannot provide a basis for a preliminary injunction in this lawsuit.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mudica v. Wexford Medical
thus, a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ponce v. Broker Solutions, Inc.
a court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's merits.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Grender, William v. McCullick
la party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Keel v. Carter
thus, a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Barbier v. Missouri Real Estate Commission
(2×)
a court issues injunctive relief in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's merits.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gilbert v. Massac County Sheriff's Department
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Laird v. Elliott
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Baston v. Robert E. Carter, Jr.
thus, a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Abernathy v. Myers
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Johnson v. Schultz
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Piel v. Coonrod
a court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's merits.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Timothy Marcus Mayberry v. Ron Neal, et al.
thus, a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fidencio Flories v. Charles Parra, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, Krome Detention Center, et al.
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Damen L. Toy v. Latoya Hughes, et al.
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Philip Berryman v. George Stephenson et al.
ecf no. 94 has nothing to do with the plaintiff's july 14, 2025 motion for tro/pi . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ramon v. Warden
thus, a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martinez-Andino v. Mullin
Although courts have sometimes found impermissible preliminary injunction or TRO motions that have “nothing to do with” the facts in the complaint, Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), or “present[] issues which are entirely different” from those in the complaint, Stewart v. INS, 762 F.2d 193, 199 (2d Cir. 1985), the pending motion for the second TRO stems from the same basic circumstances described by the original complaint—with the development that plaintiff’s counsel learned plaintiff was removed from this country just a few hours after filing sui…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William J. Amato v. City of Toledo, et al.
While these “are factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met,” In re De Lorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223 , 1229 (6th Cir. 1985), “[t]he first factor is the most important.” Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258, 265 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “‘[A] party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.’” Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 300 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glen R. Jeffery, Jr. v. Michael Cole, et al.
Regarding the handcuffing allegations, the plaintiff has not identified a specific incident when this occurred or in which defendants were involved. “[A] party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Penn v. San Juan Hosp., Inc., 528 F.2d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir. 1975)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carl Adkins v. Benjamin Alexander et al.
(2×)
Because “[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held,” Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981), the “‘party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.’” Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 300 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d. 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trevone Miller v. Jordan Slayden, et al.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is “to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lucas Michael Hubbard v. Kristy Witherington, Investigator, Garland County DHS, et al.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to “preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly Warfield v. Jared Hettich, a/k/a Jerry, Individual and Official Capacity; Troy Ponto, Individual and Official Capacity; Sam Yost, Individual and Official Capacity; Eric Timmerman, Individual and Official Capacity; Cory Ambrose, Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Rodriquez, Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Allen, Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Jones, Individual and Official Capacity; Derek Ekeren, Individual and Official Capacity; Ian Packer, Individual and Official Capacity; Caleb Evans, Individual and Official Capacity; Jess Boysen, Individual and Official Capacity; Jane Does, Individual and Official Capacity; John Does, Individual and Official Capacity; Teressa Bittinger, Individual and Official Capacity; Kellie Wasko, Individual and Official Capacity, along with all staff; Officer Wine
Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard B. Bayson v. Southeast Community College, et al.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is "to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's merits," see Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)—not to resolve any and all disagreements the parties may have, whether or not they're presented by the pleadings.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gary Matthew Shaver v. Jason Mills, Unit Coordinator at South Dakota State Penitentiary in his individual and official capacities; Nicholas Nyreen, Unit Manager at South Dakota State Penitentiary in his individual and official capacities; Teresa Bittinger, in her individual capacity; Kellie Wasko, in her individual capacity; Nick Lamb, Secretary of Corrections in his official capacity; Brent Fluke, Deputy Secretary of Corrections in his individual and official capacities; Rick Johnston, Associate Warden in his individual and official capacities; and Unknown Department of Corrections Employees
A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief “must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Emanuel Devose
v.
Herrington, Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction Massey, Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction Willis Sargent, Warden, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction John Doe, Lpn of Doctor, Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction Pitts, Warden, Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction Endell, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
v.
Herrington, Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction Massey, Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction Willis Sargent, Warden, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction John Doe, Lpn of Doctor, Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction Pitts, Warden, Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction Endell, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
94-2074.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 14, 1994.
Cited by 115 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Indiana (1) · E.D. Michigan (1)
Emanuel DEVOSE, Appellant,
v.
HERRINGTON, Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of
Correction; Massey, Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas
Department of Correction; Willis Sargent, Warden, Cummins
Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction; John Doe, LPN of
Doctor, Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas Department of
Correction; Pitts, Warden, Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas
Department of Correction; Endell, Director, Arkansas
Department of Correction, Appellees.
No. 94-2074.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 1994.
Decided Dec. 14, 1994.
Emanuel Devose, pro se.
David B. Eberhard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, AR, for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
After being injured in a van accident while being transported between prison units, Arkansas inmate Emanuel Devose brought this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action claiming various prison officials denied him adequate medical treatment for his injuries in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Devose later sought a preliminary injunction, contending prison officials had filed trumped-up disciplinary charges against him because of this lawsuit and were making him perform work duties beyond his capabilities. Faced with a motion that raised issues entirely different from those presented in Devose's complaint, the district court concluded that Devose had failed to allege circumstances that entitled him to a preliminary injunction, and denied his motion without a hearing. Devose appeals and we affirm.
2
A court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's merits. See Dataphase Sys., Inc., v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 & n. 5 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc). Thus, a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint. See Penn v. San Juan Hosp., Inc., 528 F.2d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir.1975). It is self-evident that Devose's motion for temporary relief has nothing to do with preserving the district court's decision-making power over the merits of Devose's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 lawsuit. To the contrary, Devose's motion is based on new assertions of mistreatment that are entirely different from the claim raised and the relief requested in his inadequate medical treatment lawsuit. Although these new assertions might support additional claims against the same prison officials, they cannot provide the basis for a preliminary injunction in this lawsuit. See Stewart v. United States I.N.S., 762 F.2d 193, 198-99 (2d Cir.1985). Thus, the district court correctly ruled as a matter of law that Devose was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
3
We affirm.