Verlo v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “motivated by fiscal or other considerations” and' operating “so intrusively that the essential function of the Courthouse is thwarted.” Id. at 1147 , In candor, the Court disagrees that this would be an appropriate approach. The cases cited by Ver-io II in this regard are cases where a government was attempting to avoid a court finding that it had created a designated public forum, and the court therefore inquired whether the government's historic practice with respect to the contested forum showed that the government's current litigation position was merely a smokescreen for an intent to suppress the free speech activities that led to the lawsuit. Compare id. at 1147 (citing cases) with id. at 1143 (discussing those same cases in terms of "post hoc justification[s] for a desire to suppress a particular message”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Verlo v. Martinez

2. “modified ... preliminary injunction test when the moving party demonstrates that the [irreparable harm], [balance of harms], and [public interest] factors tip strongly in its favor. In such situations, the moving party may meet the requirement for showing [likelihood of] success on the merits by showing that questions going to the merits are so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberate investigation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 238 F. Supp. 3d 1279 - McDonnell v. City & County of Denver

3. “"To obtain a preliminary injunction the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of equities is in the moving party's favor; and (4) the preliminary injunction is in the public interest."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Koontz v. Watson