Legal Opinion
RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided January 20, 2009No. 08-5115PublishedCited by 292 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction by a magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73; see RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, No. 07-CV-400-GKF-FHM, 2008 WL 4056229 (N.D.Okla. Aug. 11, 2008). Defendants- Appellants and Defendants-Counterclaim-ants-Appellants (collectively referred to as Defendant or Palace) argue that the magistrate judge incorrectly applied the preliminary injunction standard in granting Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees (collectively referred to as Plaintiff or RoDa) a…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do VegetalSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Schrier v. University of ColoradoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
- Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Paul E. GuilbertCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by292 opinions
- Alliance for Wild Rockies v. CottrellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Little v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- United States v. NacchioCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Fish v. KobachCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
- Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55 Invs., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
287 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.