Legal Opinion
Kansas Judicial Watch v. Stout
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided July 19, 2006No. 06-4056-JARPublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROBINSON, District Judge.
The Court now considers plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) and Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 2). 1 The Court held an evidentiary hearing and heard oral argument on June 28, 2006. After fully considering the written briefs, oral argument, and evidence adduced at the hearing, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for preliminary injunction, as explained more fully below. The Court denies plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the injunction with a trial on the merits.
Factual Background and Plaintiffs’ Claims
I. Background…
2Cases cited67 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Kansas Judicial Review v. StoutCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Kansas Judicial Review v. StoutSupreme Court of Kansas · 2008
- Kansas Judicial Watch v. StoutCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2011
- Wersal v. SextonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2009
- Pennsylvania Family Institute, Inc. v. CelluciDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.