interlocutory injunction
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 279 U.S. 813 - Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway · 1929Most cited · 528 citing opinions
Where the questions presented by an application for an interlocutory injunction are grave, and the injury to the moving party will be certain and irreparable, if the application be denied and the final decree be in his favor, while if the injunction be granted the injury to the opposing party, even if the final decree be in his favor, will be inconsiderable, or may be adequately indemnified by a bond, the injunction usually will be granted.
How the Supreme Court has restated “interlocutory injunction”
Each Supreme Court definition of “interlocutory injunction,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “interlocutory injunction”
Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “interlocutory injunction” — 935 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 3 definitions, chronological · 1929–1933
- ORIGINAL
An interlocutory injunction, at least ordinarily, is not a matter of strict right; but the application is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
While an application for an interlocutory injunction does not involve a final determination of the merits, it does involve the exercise of a sound judicial discretion. That discretion can be exercised only upon a determination, in the light of the issues and of the facts presented, whether the complainant has made, or has failed to make, such a showing of the gravity of his complaint as to warrant interlocutory relief.