Alison H. v. Byard

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that it \ma[de] no difference\ whether the court applied an abuse of discretion or de novo standard because reversal was warranted under either one
• stating the 16 preliminary injunction test as requiring a showing that the moving party is “substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its claim”
• “Because the standard of review is a procedural matter, not a substantive one, we are bound by federal law.”
• “Under Massachusetts law, ‘[w]here the wording of the contract is unambiguous, the contract must be enforced according to its terms’ ” (citations omitted)
• FDIC v. Singh, 977 F.2d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 1992); see, e.g., F.D.I.C. v. O’Flahaven, 857 F. Supp. 154, 159 (D.N.H. 1994) (denying motion for summary judgment on grounds that contract was ambiguous and “subject to genuine debate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).