National Labor Relations Board v. Aintree Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to require further predeprivation process when employees were given only one morning to prepare for a hearing
• holding that to obtain a preliminary injunction a plaintiff must demonstrate specific harm and \carry the burden of persuasion\ by showing a likelihood of success on the merits; whereas, for summary judgment, \plaintiff need only create a jury issue\
• noting that “the proof required for the plaintiff to obtain a preliminary injunction is much more stringent than the proof required to survive a summary judgment motion”
• noting that student discipline and educational program implementation are \matters of concern to the community at large\ and that the legality of proposed school programs is \undoubtedly of the highest public concern\
• noting that student discipline and educational program implementation are “matters of concern to the community at large” and that the legality of proposed school programs is “undoubtedly of the highest public concern”
• explaining that though an appellant can forfeit an argument by failing to raise it on appeal, the same is not true of an appellee

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).