Hatten-Gonzales v. Hyde

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that an injunction with “physically attached” materials “may have fallen short of the specificity requirement of Rule 65(d)”
• stating “[§] 1292(a) was intended to carve out only a limited exception to the final-judgment rule . . . and the long-established policy against piecemeal appeals” (quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).