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 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 744 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 University of Texas v. Camenisch.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | University of Texas v. Camenisch Anchor | green | “the purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” | 421 |
| 2 | University of Texas v. Camenisch | green | “a preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits.” | 134 |
| 3 | University of Texas v. Camenisch | green | “the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court granting a preliminary injunction are not binding at trial on the merits.” | 98 |
| 4 | Taylor v. Freeman | green | “mandatory preliminary injunctive relief in any circumstance is disfavored, and warranted only in the most extraordinary circumstances.” | 26 |
| 5 | Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners | green | “the failure to show irreparable harm is, by itself, a sufficient ground upon which to deny a preliminary injunction.” | 17 |
| 6 | PLANNED PARENT. MN, N. DAKOTA, S. DAKOTA v. Rounds | green | “government action based on presumptively reasoned democratic processes,” | 15 |
| 7 | Omega World Travel, Incorporated v. Trans World Airlines, and Airlines Reporting Corporation | green | “the purpose of interim equitable relief is to protect the movant, during the pendency of the action, from being harmed or further harmed in the manner in which the movant contends it was or will be harmed through the illegality alleged in the complaint.” | 12 |
| 8 | PLANNED PARENT. MN, N. DAKOTA, S. DAKOTA v. Rounds | green | “courts should still apply the familiar 'fair chance of prevailing' test where a preliminary injunction is sought to enjoin something other than government action based on presumptively reasoned democratic processes.” | 7 |
| 9 | Wachovia Securities, L.L.C. v. Stanton | green | “an illusory harm to the movant will not outweigh any actual harm to the non-movant.” | 5 |
| 10 | Bracco v. Lackner | green | “competence, personal knowledge and credibility of the affiant” | 5 |
| 11 | 1-800-411-Pain Referral v. Richard Tollefson, D.C. | green | “asks only whether a movant has demonstrated a 'fair chance of prevailing' in the ultimate litigation and . . . does not require a strict probabilistic determination of the chances of a movant's success when other factors, for example irreparable harm, carry substantial weight.” | 4 |
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.