Philip D. Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[a] plaintiff’s harm from the denial of a preliminary injunction is irreparable if it is not fully compensable by monetary damages” (citations omitted)
• holding that a preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the movant carries his or her burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it.”
• stating that the potential for irreparable harm is present when it is constitutional rights that are being enjoined
• holding that because the Plaintiff was unable “to demonstrate that he has a cognizable constitutional claim . . . his argument that he is entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm based on the alleged constitutional violation is without merit”
• explaining that a privacy interest in financial affairs is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment
• noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize the existence of a “temporary injunction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).