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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 11 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 Angela Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County Lloyd W. Pellman, Individually and in His Official Capacity.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Angela Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County Lloyd W. Pellman, Individually and in His Official Capacity Anchor | green | “which cannot be resolved one way or the other at the hearing on the injunction.” | 7 |
| 2 | Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell | green | “serious questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction 1s in the public interest.” | 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.