Frank E. Wetzel v. Ralph Edwards, Etc.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that we “decide[] only whether the grant of interlocutory relief . . . was appropriate under the facts of [the] case,” i.e., “whether the record shows an abuse of discretion by the district court”
• limiting our review to the facts as of the time the preliminary injunction 72 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1411 Doc: 75 Filed: 04/10/2026 Pg: 73 of 88 was issued
• “Mandatory preliminary injunctions do not preserve the status quo and normally should be granted only in those circumstances when the exigencies of the situation demand such relief.”
• “[T]he decisions made by prison administrators in their informed discretion have been accorded ‘wide-ranging deference’ by the federal courts.” (citations omitted)
• “[T]he decisions made by prison administrators in their informed discretion have been accorded ‘wide-ranging deference’ by the federal courts.”
• “[T]he decisions made by prison administrators in their informed discretion have been accorded ‘wide-ranging deference’ by the federal courts.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).