451 U.S. 390 (1981) Cited 3,228 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the question whether a preliminary injunction should have been issued . . . is moot . . . [where] the terms of the injunction . . . have been fully and irrevocably carried out."
Finding that "Rule 52 requires a district court to make specific findings concerning each of these four factors, unless fewer are dispositive of the issue"
Holding that Shoney's use of the phrase “Big Boy” in the name of its restaurants did not render the phrase confusingly similar to Frisch's own Big Boy restaurants, in part because “[b]y emphasizing ‘Shoney's Big Boy Restaurants,’ as it did in its advertising, Shoney's has identified itself as the source of the services”
Holding that a "district court abuses its discretion when it grants a preliminary injunction without making specific findings of irreparable injury to the party seeking the injunction, and such an injunction must be vacated on appeal"
Granting preliminary injunction ordering correctional officials to provide plaintiff with estrogen therapy where plaintiff was a transsexual; crossdressed, lived as a woman, and received estrogen treatment since she was 17; underwent several surgeries and procedures to enhance her feminine appearance; and defendants' failure to provide any medical treatment actually reversed the therapeutic effects of years of healing estrogen treatment