Monica Navarro Pimentel v Susan Dreyfus

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a finding that plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated individuals is a threshold showing in the equal protection analysis
• stating that “at an 19 irreducible minimum,” the party seeking immediate injunctive relief “must demonstrate a 20 fair chance of success on the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation”
• requiring plaintiffs to show “at an 16 irreducible minimum” that there is “a fair chance of success on the merits” for their claim
• asking whether the “district court’s application of the correct legal standards was (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record”
• asking whether the “district court’s application of the correct legal standards was (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record”
• reversing the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction because “[a] careful consideration of the contours” of each benefit program “including the statutory scheme, source of funding, extent of state involvement, and history” aided the court in finding there were two separate benefit programs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).