United States v. Steven Sorensen

Oral argument

• Argued

  24 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

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 necessarily abuses its discretion if it “has applied an incorrect legal standard”
• holding that committing a “clear error of judgment” or applying “an incorrect legal standard” is an abuse of discretion
• recognizing that “inevitable confusion” revives a plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief from estoppel
• holding that when parties “make factual representations in the district court or in this Court that denial of a stay will moot the appeal, they may be estopped from arguing after the stay is denied that the appeal is not moot”
• noting that an abuse of discretion occurs when the district court makes “a clear error of judgment” or applies “an incorrect legal standard” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that an abuse of discretion occurs when the district court makes “a clear error of judgment” or applies “an incorrect legal standard” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).