Chalk v. United States District Court Central District of California’s Empirical Analysis
840 F.2d 701 · 1988
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 30 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 198 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Bragdon v. Abbott (1998), Harris v. Thigpen (1991)
77 federal appellate · 30 district · 8 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 29 U.S.C. § 794
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · School Board of Nassau County Florida v. H Arline · Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League
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 198 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“preserve[s] the status quo pending a determination of the action on the merits.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this circuit, a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must meet one of two tests. Under the first, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if. it finds that: (1) the [moving party] will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted, (2) the [moving party] will probably prevail on the merits, (3) in balancing the equities, the [non-moving party] will not be harmed more than [the moving party] is helped by the injunction, and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or. that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. Under this last part of the alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits. There is one additional factor we must weigh. In cases such as the one before us in which a party seeks mandatory preliminary relief that goes well beyond maintaining thé status quo pendente lite, courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a preliminary injunction.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[h]is closeness to his students and his participation in their lives is a source of tremendous personal satisfaction and joy to him and of benefit to them.”
4 later decisions 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.