1-800-411-Pain Referral v. Richard Tollefson, D.C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in the context of a preliminary injunction, courts apply “a more rigorous threshold showing than th[e] ordinary preliminary injunction test” when the injunction would impede state law
• holding that in the context of a preliminary injunction, courts apply “a more rigorous threshold showing than th[e] ordinary preliminary injunction test” when the injunction would impede state law
• holding that in the context of a preliminary injunction, courts apply “a more rigorous threshold showing than th[e] ordinary preliminary injunction test” when the injunction would impede state law
• reasoning that the “upshot” of Sorrell is that “when a court determines commercial speech restrictions are content- or speaker-based, it should then assess their constitutionality under Central Hudson”
• describing “this circuit’s ordinary preliminary injunction test, [as] ask[ing] only whether a mov-ant has demonstrated a ‘fair chance of prevailing’ in the ultimate litigation”
• explaining that Central Hudson applies to restrictions on commercial speech

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).