Com. v. Livingston, J.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the proponent of preliminary injunction must show “certain and immediate” harm, rather than “speculative or theoretical” harm, that would arise in the absence of an injunction (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting D.T., 942 F.3d at 327)
• requiring court to consider the full record before it when ruling on a preliminary injunction
• in turn quoting D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Schs., 942 F.3d 324, 326–27 (6th Cir. 2019)
• first quoting Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013); and then citing O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 495– 96
• “[A] party who fails to show a substantial likelihood of standing is not 4 entitled to a preliminary injunction.”
• “To merit a preliminary injunction, an injury must be both certain and immediate, not speculative or theoretical.” (citation modified)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).