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.
9 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 3,093 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 Mazurek v. Armstrong.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mazurek v. Armstrong Anchor | green | “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” | 1,040 |
| 2 | Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | green | “issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with . . . injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” | 923 |
| 3 | Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker | green | “a strong showing . . . normally includes a demonstration of how the applicant proposes to prove the key elements of its case.” | 234 |
| 4 | Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker | green | “the applicant need not show that he definitely will win the case.” | 216 |
| 5 | Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker | green | “a mere possibility of success is not enough.” | 208 |
| 6 | Robert Westefer v. Michael Neal | green | “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation, and use the least intrusive means to correct the violation of the federal right.” | 156 |
| 7 | John Doe v. University of Southern Indiana | green | “give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences in his favor, as would be the case in evaluating a motion to dismiss on the pleadings.” | 129 |
| 8 | John Doe v. University of Southern Indiana | green | “they are likely to be decided after more complete discovery and litigation.” | 108 |
| 9 | Anthony Mays v. Thomas Dart | green | “those requiring an affirmative act by the defendant” | 79 |
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.