Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• giving “substantial deference” to lower court’s finding that there was “at least a possibility” of dissipation of assets absent an asset-freezing injunction, and consequently concluding that the possibility of irreparable injury had been adequately demonstrated
• the threat of injury “must be imminent, not remote 6 || or speculative” (citation omitted)
• “A court is authorized to impose a preliminary injunction on assets which were 9 controlled by a party, even if that party did not expressly own or possess those assets.”
• the threat of 19 injury “must be imminent, not remote or speculative” (citation omitted)
• the threat 17 of injury “must be imminent, not remote or speculative”
• the threat of injury “must be imminent, not 13 remote or speculative”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).