Wetzel v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
635 F.2d 283 · 1980
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton (1991), Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal Udv-Usa v. Ashcroft H C F (2004)
27 federal appellate · 8 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex · Procunier v. Martinez · Meachum v. Fano · Vitek v. Jones
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Mandatory preliminary injunctions [generally] do not preserve the status quo and normally should be granted only in those circumstances when the exigencies of the situation demand such relief.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n this circuit the trial court standard for interlocutory relief is the balance-of-hardship test. Four factors enter into the determination of whether to grant or to withhold interim injunctive relief: (a) plaintiff’s likelihood of success in the underlying dispute between the parties; (b) whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if interim relief is denied; (c) the injury to defendant if an injunction is issued; and (d) the public interest. There is a correlation between the likelihood of plaintiff’s success and the probability of irreparable injury to him. If the likelihood of success is great, the need for showing the probability of irreparable harm is less. Conversely, if the likelihood of success is remote there must be a strong showing of the probability of irreparable injury to justify issuance of the injunction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the preliminary injunction is denied, (2). the likelihood of harm to the defendant if the requested relief is granted, (8) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, and (4) the public interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.