Kiel v. City of Kenosha’s Empirical Analysis
236 F.3d 814 · 2000
Citation profile
13 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on McDonald v. Board of Election Comm'rs of Chicago · McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission · Platinum Home Mortgage Corporation v. Platinum Financial Group Incorporated · Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. United States · Sauer-Getriebe Kg v. White Hydraulics, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In assessing whether a preliminary injunction is warranted, a Court must consider whether the party seeking the injunction has demonstrated that: (1) it has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists; (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is denied; (4) the irreparable harm the party will-suffer without injunctive relief is greater than the harm the opposing party will suffer if the preliminary injunction is granted; and (5) the preliminary injunction will not harm the public interest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“before seeking the injunction. DISCUSSION 39 In reviewing the denial of a preliminary injunction, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error, its balancing of the factors for a preliminary injunction under the abuse of discretion standard, and its legal conclusions de novo. See Kiel v. City of Kenosha, 236 F.3d 814 , 815 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); Teamsters Local Unions Nos. 75 and 200 v. Barry Trucking, Inc., 176 F.3d 1004 , 1011 (7th Cir. 1999). We accord substantial deference to the trial court's decision because we”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: (1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modifying injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.