Weinstein v. Aisenberg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where plaintiffs filed a complaint for conversion, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief, they had an adequate remedy at law
• holding that where plaintiffs filed a complaint for conversion, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief, they had an adequate remedy at law
• holding a claim for money damages is an adequate remedy at law and so it does not provide a sufficient basis for injunctive relief, “notwithstanding the possibility that a money judgment will be uncollectible”
• substituting demonstration of clear legal right for third prong of injunction test requiring substantial likelihood of success on the merits
• noting an appellee was not entitled to equitable relief because it had “an adequate remedy at law, i.e., money damages.”
• reversing trial court’s grant of a temporary injunction to prevent defendants from withdrawing funds at two nonparty banks where the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law in the form of money damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).