Shackleford v. Gooch

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “the argument ‘that potentially wasted and diverted staff resources constitutes irreparable harm’ has been held meritless” (quoting Shays v. FEC, 340 F. Supp. 2d 39, 48 (D.D.C. 2004))
• “[O]ft-repeated standard indicates that an applicant must ‘make a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits.’”
• repeated arguments that had been already considered and rejected did not make a strong showing of likelihood of success
• “a court has ‘inherent authority to strike any filed paper which it determines to be abusive or otherwise improper under the circumstances.’ ” (quoting In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc., Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litig., 763 F. Supp. 2d 423, 581 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).