Chicago United Industries, Ltd. v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a damage claim saved the case from complete mootness and citing Arizonans as creating an exception \for cases in which a damages claim is added at the last minute in a desperate attempt to stave off the dismissal of the case as moot\
• noting that “temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are intended to ‘preserve the status quo’ is indeed a common formula” but criticizing that formula and ultimately declining to decide the issue
• noting that “temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are intended to ‘preserve the status quo’ is indeed a common formula” but criticizing that formula and ultimately declining to decide the issue
• noting that preliminary injunctions ordinarily are granted to “preserve the status quo,” and that the movant ordinarily “is not given any rights, even temporarily, that would normally be his only if the legal dispute were resolved in his favor”
• stating when discussing Rule 54(c) and mootness that \[t]here is . . . an exception for explicit waivers\
• emphasizing importance of comity between federal and state governments and respect for state and local government processes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).