Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
IT Corp. v. County of Imperialgreen2 sentences2025(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) However, as the court in IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 (IT Corp.), noted: ‘“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.”’ (See White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 554 .) “The potential merit and interim harm are described as interrelated factors because the greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to obtain an injunction.” (Tulare Lake, supra, 92 Cal.Ap 2024“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.” (IT Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 73 .) As discussed above, the People submitted several declarations from the LAPD, including one in which the officer opined the property is the single most dangerous location in North Hollywood, and another stating that 20 if defendants “took control of the Vanowen Apartments back from the . . . | 2 | 6 |
White v. Davisgreen2 sentences2025(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) However, as the court in IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 (IT Corp.), noted: ‘“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.”’ (See White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 554 .) “The potential merit and interim harm are described as interrelated factors because the greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to obtain an injunction.” (Tulare Lake, supra, 92 Cal.Ap 2022(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678 ; King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1226 ; Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 58 , 76; Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1166 .) “[I]njunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs that have been completed. [Citation.] It should neither serve as punishment for past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of any evidence establishing the reasonable probability the acts will be repeated in the future. . . . ‘[T]o authorize the issuance of an injunction, it m | 2 | 6 |
Butt v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences2025(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) However, as the court in IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 (IT Corp.), noted: ‘“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.”’ (See White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 554 .) “The potential merit and interim harm are described as interrelated factors because the greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to obtain an injunction.” (Tulare Lake, supra, 92 Cal.Ap 2025(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) However, as the court in IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 (IT Corp.), noted: ‘“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.”’ (See White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 554 .) “The potential merit and interim harm are described as interrelated factors because the greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to obtain an injunction.” (Tulare Lake, supra, 92 Cal.Ap | 2 | 4 |
City of Corona v. AMG Outdoor Advertising CA4/2green1 sentence2025(People v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 266 , 285 (Uber); City of Corona v. AMG Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 291, 299 (City of Corona).) We review the issue of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Gleaves v. Watersgreen2 sentences2008“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 715 , 672 P.2d 121 ].) “[A]s a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) 2008“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 715 , 672 P.2d 121 ].) “[A]s a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) | 1 | 1 |
Bullock v. City and County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2008“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 715 , 672 P.2d 121 ].) “[A]s a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) 2008“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 715 , 672 P.2d 121 ].) “[A]s a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) | 1 | 1 |
Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Ass'n v. State Water Resources Control Boardgreen2 sentences2008“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 715 , 672 P.2d 121 ].) “[A]s a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) 2008“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.” (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 715 , 672 P.2d 121 ].) “[A]s a general matter, the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tulare Lake Canal Co. v. Stratford Pub. Util. Dist.
green
1 sentence2025(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (Butt).) However, as the court in IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73 (IT Corp.), noted: ‘“The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.”’ (See White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 554 .) “The potential merit and interim harm are described as interrelated factors because the greater the plaintiff's showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to obtain an injunction.” (Tulare Lake, supra, 92 Cal.Ap | 1 | 2025–2025 |
King v. Meese
green
1 sentence2022(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678 ; King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1226 ; Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 58 , 76; Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1166 .) “[I]njunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs that have been completed. [Citation.] It should neither serve as punishment for past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of any evidence establishing the reasonable probability the acts will be repeated in the future. . . . ‘[T]o authorize the issuance of an injunction, it m | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Evans v. Evans
green
1 sentence2022(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678 ; King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1226 ; Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 58 , 76; Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1166 .) “[I]njunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs that have been completed. [Citation.] It should neither serve as punishment for past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of any evidence establishing the reasonable probability the acts will be repeated in the future. . . . ‘[T]o authorize the issuance of an injunction, it m | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Scripps Health v. Marin
green
1 sentence2022(Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 677-678 ; King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1226 ; Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 58 , 76; Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1166 .) “[I]njunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs that have been completed. [Citation.] It should neither serve as punishment for past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of any evidence establishing the reasonable probability the acts will be repeated in the future. . . . ‘[T]o authorize the issuance of an injunction, it m | 1 | 2022–2022 |
SB Liberty v. Isla Verde Assn. CA4/1
green
1 sentence2021Legal Standard “The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits of the action.” (SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 272, 280 .) Courts review two interrelated factors when determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction: “(1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief. . . . ‘The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injun | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Cohen v. Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences2003In Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 447 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 114 ] (Cohen II), the Court of Appeal, in a decision on remand from this court (see Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 ]) addressed the question whether the relative “balance of harms” in that case supported the trial court’s decision denying a preliminary injunction in a taxpayer action that challenged the validity of a recently enacted city ordinance imposing various regulations and restrictions on escort services within the city. 2003In Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 447 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 114 ] (Cohen II), the Court of Appeal, in a decision on remand from this court (see Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 ]) addressed the question whether the relative “balance of harms” in that case supported the trial court’s decision denying a preliminary injunction in a taxpayer action that challenged the validity of a recently enacted city ordinance imposing various regulations and restrictions on escort services within the city. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cohen v. Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences2003In Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 447 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 114 ] (Cohen II), the Court of Appeal, in a decision on remand from this court (see Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 ]) addressed the question whether the relative “balance of harms” in that case supported the trial court’s decision denying a preliminary injunction in a taxpayer action that challenged the validity of a recently enacted city ordinance imposing various regulations and restrictions on escort services within the city. 2003In Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 447 [ 225 Cal.Rptr. 114 ] (Cohen II), the Court of Appeal, in a decision on remand from this court (see Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 707 P.2d 840 ]) addressed the question whether the relative “balance of harms” in that case supported the trial court’s decision denying a preliminary injunction in a taxpayer action that challenged the validity of a recently enacted city ordinance imposing various regulations and restrictions on escort services within the city. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.