Winnebago Tribe v. Stovall

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a party’s “argument concerning the balance of harms . . . lacks merit, [because it] effectively rais[es] only a difference of opinion as to outcome”
• relying post Verizon on Young as an alternative to Pierce in rejecting a state official’s sovereign immunity defense in a tax injunction suit
• providing district courts with “wide discretion under Rule 65(c)” to determine “whether to require security”
• providing district courts with “wide discretion under Rule 65(c)” to determine “whether to require security”
• providing district courts with “wide discretion under Rule 65(c)” to determine “whether to require security”
• noting “[t]he standard for abuse of discretion is high” and entails “an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).