District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)

Citation: District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)
Parent Document: District of Columbia v. Towers (2021)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2021-05-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4882760/district-of-columbia-v-towers/ ↗

Full Text

1,122 chars

In assessing whether to grant an appellant’s motion for a stay pending appeal
we consider four factors: whether the appellant is likely to succeed on the merits of
the appeal; whether the appellant is in danger of suffering irreparable harm if the
stay is denied; whether the opposing party is likely to suffer harm if the stay is
granted or the balance of harms weighs in favor of a stay; and whether the public
interest favors the granting of a stay. See District of Columbia v. Reid, 104 A.3d
859, 865 (D.C. 2014); Barry v. Washington Post Co., 529 A.2d 319, 320–21 (D.C.
1987). These factors “interrelate on a sliding scale” such that a stronger showing of
a likelihood of success may compensate for a weaker showing on the other factors
and vice versa. Salvaterra v. Ramirez, 105 A3d 1003, 1005 (D.C. 2014) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Further, where a case presents “a serious legal question”
and “when there is little risk of harm to the other parties or to the public interest,”
“[a]n order maintaining the status quo may be appropriate.” Walter E. Lynch & Co.,
Inc. v. Fuisz, 862 A.2d 929, 932 (D.C. 2004).

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text