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 275 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.” | 169 |
| 2 | University of Texas v. Camenisch | green | “to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” | 45 |
| 3 | Glover v. Johnson | green | “attempt to administer any portion of a state correctional system program except in the most compelling situations” | 18 |
| 4 | Vernon Stenberg, Sr. v. Cheker Oil Company and Marathon Oil Company, (Two Cases) | green | “if the currently existing status quo itself is causing one of the parties irreparable injury, it is necessary to alter the situation so as to prevent the injury, either by returning to the last uncontested status quo between the parties, by the issuance of a mandatory injunction…” | 15 |
| 5 | Jones v. Caruso | green | “these factors are not prerequisites, but are factors that are to be balanced against each other.” | 14 |
| 6 | Glauser-Nagy v. Medical Mutual of Ohio | green | “a preliminary injunction is mandatory-that is, where its terms would alter, rather than preserve, the status quo by commanding some positive action . . . the requested relief should be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” | 5 |
| 7 | Glauser-Nagy v. Medical Mutual of Ohio | green | “a preliminary injunction is mandatory- that is, where its terms would alter, rather than preserve, the status quo by commanding some positive action . . . the requested relief should be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” | 3 |
| 8 | Glauser-Nagy v. Medical Mutual of Ohio | green | “where a preliminary injunction is mandatory-that is, where its terms would alter, rather than preserve, the status quo by commanding some positive act . . . the requested relief should be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” | 3 |
| 9 | Union Home Mortg. Corp. v. Erik Cromer | green | “must be couched in specific and unambiguous terms” | 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.