O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
MURPHY, Circuit Judge, joined in full by EBEL, KELLY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges, and as to Part I by HARTZ, McConnell, and tymkovich, Circuit Judges,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the per curiam opinion that a movant for a preliminary injunction must make a heightened showing when the requested injunction will alter the status quo. As set out more fully below, such, an approach is completely consistent with the historic purpose of the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, I join parts I, II, and III.A of the per curiam opinion. I must respectfully dissent, however,…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Mazurek v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- University of Texas v. CamenischSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.