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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 29 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from American Cetacean Society v. Baldridge.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | American Cetacean Society v. Baldridge Anchor | green | “the first, and most important, hurdle which the petitioners must overcome is the requirement that they present a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their appeal.” | 6 |
| 2 | American Cetacean Society v. Baldridge | green | “the public interest is a uniquely important consideration in evaluating a request for interim relief.” | 6 |
| 3 | Mario M. Cuomo v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission | green | “the court must consider the significance of the change from the status quo which would arise in the absence of a stay, as well as likelihood of occurrence of the claimed injury, when determining whether parties have truly met their burden of demonstrating irreparable harm justif…” | 5 |
| 4 | Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc. | green | “an order maintaining the status quo is appropriate when a serious legal question is presented, when little if any harm will befall other interested persons or the public, and when denial of the order would inflict irreparable injury on the movant.” | 3 |
| 5 | Scott Armstrong, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Executive Office of the President, Appellants/cross-Appellees | green | “no record is subject to both the fra and the pra” | 3 |
| 6 | American Cetacean Society v. Baldridge | green | “even should the petitioner show irreparable harm would result without the imposition of a stay, if the requirement of a strong likelihood of success is not met, the petition will be denied.” | 3 |
| 7 | Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Energy Policy Development Group | green | “under this circuit's precedent, the harms to each party are tested for 'substantiality, likelihood of occurrence, and adequacy of proof.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.