injunction hearing in Arizona

17 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
Shoen v. Shoengreen arizctapp · 1990 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2025 2 sentences 2025This Court may affirm the superior court’s decision “if it was correct for any reason.” Washburn v. Pima Cnty., 206 Ariz. 571 , 575 ¶ 7 (App. 2003). ¶21 DKC argues the court abused its discretion in denying DKC’s request for a preliminary injunction because it did not consider and did not make findings regarding the four factors (“the Shoen factors”) set forth in Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58, 63 (App. 1990). 2019See Shoen , 167 Ariz. at 63 , 804 P.2d at 792 . 2 Disposition ¶14 We vacate the trial court's stay order and remand for consideration of Apache's preliminary injunction request. 3 As we have found jurisdiction exists under § 12-2101(A)(5)(b), we need not reach Apache's contention that jurisdiction exists under § 12-2101(A)(3).	3	3
Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venturegreen arizctapp · 1993 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2018 2 sentences 2018Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275 , 280–81 (App. 1993) (“Under Rule 65(a), the trial court may not reach a final decision on the merits in a preliminary injunction hearing unless the hearing has been properly consolidated with a trial on the merits.”) (citations omitted). 2017See Powell–Cerkoney v. TCR–Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275 , 280- 81 (App. 1993) (“Under Rule 65(a), the trial court may not reach a final decision on the merits in a preliminary injunction hearing unless the hearing has been properly consolidated with a trial on the merits.”).	3	3
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simmsgreen arizctapp · 2013 · cited in 5 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025 2 sentences 2025An abuse of discretion occurs when “the court applied the incorrect substantive law or preliminary injunction standard, based its decision on an erroneous material finding of fact, or applied the appropriate preliminary injunction standard in a manner resulting in an abuse of discretion.” Id. 2022“An abuse of discretion exists if the superior court applied the incorrect substantive law or preliminary injunction standard, based its decision on an erroneous material finding of fact, or applied the appropriate preliminary injunction standard in a manner resulting in an abuse of discretion.” Id. (citation omitted). ¶15 Shady Park argues that the preliminary injunction violates its First Amendment rights because music is a protected form of expression, and the curfew is an overly broad restriction.	1	5
United Motors Service, Inc. v. Tropic-Aire, Inc.green ca8 · 1932 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 2 sentences 1977“The philosophy of the matter is that an error in granting an injunction is an error of the court, for which there is no recovery in damages unless the same is sufficiently intentional as to be the basis of a suit for malicious prosecution, otherwise the damage is damnum absque injuria.” United Motors Service, Inc. v. Tropic-Aire, Inc., 57 F.2d 479, 483 (8th Cir. 1932). 1977United Motors Service v. Tropic-Aire, supra. As is said in the case last cited: “The philosophy of the matter is that an error in granting an injunction is an error of the court, for which there is no recovery in damages unless the same is sufficiently intentional as to be the basis of a suit for malicious prosecution, otherwise the damage is damnum absque injuria.” 57 F.2d at 483 .	1	2
State v. Bohngreen ariz · 1977 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1997) (right to be present at critical stages). ¶11 In his supplemental brief, Heydorn contends that the justice court‘s improper grant of the injunction was error which led to this conviction.	1	1
State v. Connergreen ariz · 1990 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1997) (right to be present at critical stages). ¶11 In his supplemental brief, Heydorn contends that the justice court‘s improper grant of the injunction was error which led to this conviction.	1	1
cluster 442842green ca9 · 1984 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See Cinevision Corp. v. City of Burbank, 745 F.2d 560, 567 (9th Cir. 1984) (“‘[L]ive entertainment, such as musical and dramatic works, fall[s] within the First Amendment guarantee.’”) (citation omitted).	1	1
Karen Fann v. State of Arizonagreen ariz · 2021 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022Decision of the Court ¶23 A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: "(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted, (3) the balance of hardship favors the party seeking injunctive relief, and (4) public policy favors granting the injunctive relief." Fann v. State, 251 Ariz. 425, 432, ¶ 16 (2021).	1	1
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Sourcegreen ariz · 1999 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See Gila III , 195 Ariz. at 421 ¶ 35 n.12, 989 P.2d at 749 n.12. 2018See Gila III , 195 Ariz. at 421 ¶ 35 n.12, 989 P.2d at 749 n.12.	1	1
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc.green arizctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015We disagree. ¶14 “[W]e review de novo any questions involving interpretation or application of court rules[.]” Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., 218 Ariz. 541, 549, ¶ 22 , 189 P.3d 1114, 1122 (App. 2008). 2015We disagree. ¶14 “[W]e review de novo any questions involving interpretation or application of court rules[.]” Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., 218 Ariz. 541, 549, ¶ 22 , 189 P.3d 1114, 1122 (App. 2008).	1	1
Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Espergreen ariz · 1975 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq	1	1
Seagram-Distillers Corporation v. New Cut Rate Liquors, Inc.green ca7 · 1955 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq	1	1
Industrial Bank of Washington, a Corporation v. Walter N. Tobriner, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and Theodore J. Schevegreen cadc · 1968 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Washburn v. Pima County green arizctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2025This Court may affirm the superior court’s decision “if it was correct for any reason.” Washburn v. Pima Cnty., 206 Ariz. 571 , 575 ¶ 7 (App. 2003). ¶21 DKC argues the court abused its discretion in denying DKC’s request for a preliminary injunction because it did not consider and did not make findings regarding the four factors (“the Shoen factors”) set forth in Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58, 63 (App. 1990).	1	2025–2025
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. green cafc · 2008 1 sentence 2019Id.	1	2019–2019
In Re Krohn green ariz · 2002 2 sentences 2011In a supplemental reply PCF further argued that the sale was void because the purchase price was grossly inadequate, citing In re Krohn, 203 Ariz. 205 , 52 P.3d 774 (2002) and Millennium Rock Mortg. 2011In a supplemental reply PCF further argued that the sale was void because the purchase price was grossly inadequate, citing In re Krohn, 203 Ariz. 205 , 52 P.3d 774 (2002) and Millennium Rock Mortg.	1	2011–2011
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2 v. Phoenix Employee Relations Board green ariz · 1982 1 sentence 2006Id. ¶ 16 Although the trial court vacated the preliminary injunction hearing, the issue presented is likely to recur in this litigation and in future cases in which the Commission relies on the Confidentiality Statute to withhold relevant, non-privileged information and documents.	1	2006–2006
Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co. green scotus · 1940 2 sentences 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq	1	1993–1993
Coco v. Florida green scotus · 1955 2 sentences 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq	1	1993–1993
New Cut Rate Liquors, Inc. v. Seagram Distillers Corp. green scotus · 1955 2 sentences 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq	1	1993–1993
Earhart v. Callan green scotus · 1955 2 sentences 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq 1993See Paris-Phoenix Corp. v. Esper, 112 Ariz. 320, 321 , 541 P.2d 917, 918 (1975); Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310 , 60 S.Ct. 517 , 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (trial court erred in addressing constitutionality of statute in preliminary injunction ruling); Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 405 F.2d 1321, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1968) (the district court’s findings and conclusions in a preliminary injunction hearing “should not be regarded as binding” on the final disposition of questions of law and fact in further trial court proceedings); Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. New Cut Rate Liq	1	1993–1993
Davis v. Poitevant & Favre Lbr. Co. neutral lactapp · 1931 2 sentences 1977We have found only five jurisdictions which allow recovery from wrongful injunction in excess of the amount of the bond: Vermont [Houghton v. Grimes, 103 Vt. 54 , 151 A. 642 (1930)]; Louisiana [Davis v. Poitevant & Favre Lumber Co., 15 La.App. 657 , 132 So. 790 (1931)]; Illinois [Kohlsaat v. Crate, 114 Ill. 14 , 32 N.E. 481 (1892)]; Indiana [Howard D. 1977We have found only five jurisdictions which allow recovery from wrongful injunction in excess of the amount of the bond: Vermont [Houghton v. Grimes, 103 Vt. 54 , 151 A. 642 (1930)]; Louisiana [Davis v. Poitevant & Favre Lumber Co., 15 La.App. 657 , 132 So. 790 (1931)]; Illinois [Kohlsaat v. Crate, 114 Ill. 14 , 32 N.E. 481 (1892)]; Indiana [Howard D.	1	1977–1977
Houghton v. Grimes green vt · 1930 2 sentences 1977We have found only five jurisdictions which allow recovery from wrongful injunction in excess of the amount of the bond: Vermont [Houghton v. Grimes, 103 Vt. 54 , 151 A. 642 (1930)]; Louisiana [Davis v. Poitevant & Favre Lumber Co., 15 La.App. 657 , 132 So. 790 (1931)]; Illinois [Kohlsaat v. Crate, 114 Ill. 14 , 32 N.E. 481 (1892)]; Indiana [Howard D. 1977We have found only five jurisdictions which allow recovery from wrongful injunction in excess of the amount of the bond: Vermont [Houghton v. Grimes, 103 Vt. 54 , 151 A. 642 (1930)]; Louisiana [Davis v. Poitevant & Favre Lumber Co., 15 La.App. 657 , 132 So. 790 (1931)]; Illinois [Kohlsaat v. Crate, 114 Ill. 14 , 32 N.E. 481 (1892)]; Indiana [Howard D.	1	1977–1977
Kohlsaat v. Crate neutral ill · 1892 1 sentence 1977We have found only five jurisdictions which allow recovery from wrongful injunction in excess of the amount of the bond: Vermont [Houghton v. Grimes, 103 Vt. 54 , 151 A. 642 (1930)]; Louisiana [Davis v. Poitevant & Favre Lumber Co., 15 La.App. 657 , 132 So. 790 (1931)]; Illinois [Kohlsaat v. Crate, 114 Ill. 14 , 32 N.E. 481 (1892)]; Indiana [Howard D.	1	1977–1977

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2101 (6) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-341.01 (5)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 61 (1907–2026) PA 54 (1918–2026) NC 42 (1893–2018) TX 41 (1934–2026) IL 40 (1912–2024) FL 39 (1982–2025) WA 31 (1896–2025) LA 31 (1954–2022) NY 30 (1896–2024) OH 27 (1998–2026) IN 24 (1961–2024) GA 19 (1877–2024) CO 18 (1903–2026) AZ 17 (1977–2025) MO 16 (1914–2018) DE 16 (1981–2024) AL 14 (1996–2024) UT 14 (1950–2026) MA 14 (1980–2024) MT 14 (1981–2026) WI 12 (1988–2025) VI 10 (2013–2025) MD 9 (1917–2025) ME 8 (1978–2022) RI 7 (2004–2024) CT 7 (1977–2016) TN 6 (1914–2014) MI 6 (1906–2026) NJ 6 (1940–2015) NE 4 (1903–2023) VT 4 (2001–2025) MS 4 (1958–2010) KS 4 (2011–2024) DC 4 (1987–2018) SD 4 (1893–2014) MN 4 (1980–2012) AK 4 (1968–2021) IA 4 (1877–1942) NM 3 (1936–2025) ID 3 (2024–2025) VA 3 (1970–1998) WV 3 (1927–2022) OK 3 (1923–1928) OR 2 (1997–2001) HI 2 (2017–2022) SC 2 (2006–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check