Section 8
- Citation
- Section 8
- Parent Document
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2011-02-25
Other Sections in This Document (141)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
- Section 8
Full Text
1,103 charsThe district court’s oversight is legally significant for three related reasons. First, the person or entity seeking injunctive relief must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Id. at 375. An injunction will not issue if the person or entity seeking injunctive relief shows a mere “possibility of some remote future injury,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), or a “conjectural or hypothetical” injury, City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 106 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). Second, “[ijnjunctive relief ... must be tailored to remedy the specific ha'rm alleged. An overb[roa]d injunction is an abuse of discretion.” Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1991) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Third and finally, “[a] mandatory injunction ... is particularly disfavored. In general, mandatory injunctions are not granted unless extreme or very serious damage will result[,] and are not issued in doubtful cases.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 879 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).