PLANNED PARENT. MN, N. DAKOTA, S. DAKOTA v. Rounds

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the unclear meaning of the phrase in the context of prevailing on a preliminary injunction
• finding that because the moving party had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that it was likely to prevail on the merits of its claim, it was unnecessary to address remaining Dataphase factors
• finding that because the moving party had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that it was likely to prevail on the merits of its claim, it was unnecessary to address remaining Dataphase factors
• noting that movant could not meet “even the less rigorous requirement to show a fair chance of prevailing, much less the more rigorous requirement . . . that it is likely to prevail, on the merits of its claim”
• explaining differences in application of Dataphase factors to preliminary injunctions involving government and private action
• characterizing the likely-to-prevail standard as “more rigorous” than the fair-chance standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).