The Arc of California v. Toby Douglas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding this court may exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over otherwise non-appealable rulings inextricably intertwined with orders properly before the court on interlocutory appeal
• holding this court may exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over otherwise non-appealable rulings inextricably intertwined with orders properly before the court on interlocutory appeal
• explaining that courts are “loath to withhold relief solely on” the basis of a delay and “such tardiness is not particularly probative in the context of ongoing, worsening injuries”
• exercising pendent appellate jurisdiction over dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where district court ordered dismissal “for the selfsame reason” that it denied preliminary injunction
• contrasting the record in Managed Pharmacy Care, which included “formal approval of two SPAs, communicated in letters expressly stating that 26 AACHC V. AHCCCS the SPAs in those instances were consistent with Section 30(A
• requiring a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).