Opinion No. Oag 31-82, (1982)

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 properly applied Bell to the immigration detention context
• holding that, given various “practical considerations,” a district court did not abuse its discretion by crafting injunctive relief to provide detainees at U.S. Customs and Border Protection Facilities with wet wipes for sanitation purposes instead of showers
• instructing jail officials to tailor conditions to particular features of a detention facility and the length of detention
• finding evidence of “medical risks associated with . . . being exposed to communicable diseases” adequate to establish irreparable harm
• discussing that when reviewing a preliminary injunction: “If the district court identifies the correct legal standard, it will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result if it had applied the law to the facts of the case.”
• “[I]t 9 is not unreasonable to infer that a person who has been detained in a station for over 10 12 hours (after having been awake for some period of time before his detention) has a right 11 to lie down and rest, even in the middle of the day.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).