Legal Opinion
Animal Protection Institute v. Martin
District Court, D. Maine
Decided September 24, 2007No. CV-06-128-B-WPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, Jr., District Judge.
In a case involving the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Court denies the Animal Protection Institute’s (API) motion in limine to exclude as a matter of law the Court’s consideration of the balance of relative hardships from the traditional four-factor analysis for determining whether to issue an injunction.
I. BACKGROUND
Traditionally, a court is directed to examine four factors in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction. 1 Esso Std. Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 17-18 (1st Cir.2006); Bl(a)ck Tea Soc’y v.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Paul E. GuilbertCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Monroig-ZayasCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- National Wildlife Federation, Great Bear Foundation v. Burlington Northern Railroad, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Bl(a)ck Tea Society v. City of BostonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Animal Welfare Institute v. MartinDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2008
- Animal Welfare Institute v. MartinDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2009