injunction analysis in Michigan

2026An injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that issues only when justice requires, there is no adequate remedy at law, and there exists a real and imminent danger of irreparable injury.” Davis v Detroit Fin Review Team, 296 Mich App 568, 613-614 ; 821 NW2d 896 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021Spohn v Van Dyke Pub Schs, 296 Mich App 470, 479 ; 822 NW2d 239 (2012).

2021Spohn v Van Dyke Pub Schs, 296 Mich App 470, 479 ; 822 NW2d 239 (2012).

2018By issuing a preliminary injunction in these circumstances, the Court of Claims renders the extraordinary nature of a preliminary injunction trivial, Pontiac Fire Fighters , 482 Mich. at 11 , 753 N.W.2d 595 ; negates the role of the "irreparable harm" factor; and, in my judgment, abuses its discretion in failing to accord reasonable meaning to this Court's traditional preliminary injunction factors.

2008In Michigan Coalition of State Employees Unions v Civil Service Comm, 465 Mich 212 , 225 n 11; 634 NW2d 692 (2001), this Court noted that besides the demonstration of irreparable harm, the three additional factors in a preliminary injunction analysis are (1) whether harm to the applicant absent such an injunction outweighs the harm it would cause to the adverse party, (2) the strength of the moving party’s showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits, and (3) harm to the public interest if an injunction is issued.

2008In Michigan Coalition of State Employees Unions v Civil Service Comm, 465 Mich 212 , 225 n 11; 634 NW2d 692 (2001), this Court noted that besides the demonstration of irreparable harm, the three additional factors in a preliminary injunction analysis are (1) whether harm to the applicant absent such an injunction outweighs the harm it would cause to the adverse party, (2) the strength of the moving party’s showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits, and (3) harm to the public interest if an injunction is issued.

1961The Taylor Avenue Improvement Association sought an injunction because of the violation of the building restriction and this Court, in Taylor Avenue Improvement Association v. Detroit Trust Co., 283 Mich 304 , permitted, upon certain conditions, the use of the lot for such commercial purpose, holding that the lot, due to changed conditions at the Woodward intersection, could not be developed residentially and that no damage would result to the subdivision from the gasoline station.

1906In the case of Selchow v. Baker, 93 N. Y. 59 , it was held that: “While, when a complaint shows no cause of action, the granting of a preliminary injunction is an error of law, which may be reviewed on appeal, the case must be very clear to justify the court in deciding the merits of the controversy on a mere motion, * * * and the court would ordinarily decline in a case presenting any serious question, to deprive either party of the privilege of having the merits of his case deliberately heard and passed upon on appeal from the final judgment.” In the present case it may be said that a constr