Hirschfeld v. Board of Elections in City of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that where “irreparability is a product of the moving party’s own delay, [t]his is a delaying tactic that is inequitable to the [other party] and to the courts as well.”
• rebuking the Board of Elections for seeking a stay twenty-eight days after judgment was entered and only six days before election day
• denying stay on other grounds, but noting that moving party’s inexcusable delay weighed strongly against stay
• imposing double costs and $500 attorney’s fees where appellant “filed its motion for a stay pending appeal in complete disregard for” Fed. R. App. P. 8
• denying motion to stay judgment because there was ‘no explanation why the instant motion for a stay pending appeal was made in the first instance to [the appellate court]”
• characterizing this factor as “a substantial possibility, although less than a likelihood of success”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).