|
Authored by: jjs on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 10:12 PM EST |
From the webpage you cite, it states the ruling was that an
injunction is NOT AUTOMATIC - not that it is never allowed.
"That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it
has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies
available at law are inadequate to compensate for that
injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships
between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is
warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be
disserved by a permanent injunction. The decision to grant
or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the
district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of
discretion. (...) Neither the District Court nor the Court
of Appeals below fairly applied these principles."
(from the majority opinion)
Whether one should be granted in this case depends on that
test - but it is not an automatic "no injunction"
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|