13 Cited authorities

Mazurek v. Armstrong
520 U.S. 968 (1997) Cited 3,380 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief has a "requirement for substantial proof is much higher" than a defendant's summary judgment motion
Baze v. Rees
553 U.S. 35 (2008) Cited 1,043 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Eighth Amendment context that the government's choice of drug can violate the Constitution
Emmett v. Johnson
532 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2008) Cited 622 times
Holding Viriginia's lethal injection protocol does not violate Eighth Amendment
Raby v. Livingston
600 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2010) Cited 297 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding a plaintiff must show that he will experience more than "any minor pain involved in multiple attempts to find an adequate vein."
Gomez v. District Court
503 U.S. 653 (1992) Cited 147 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding "[e]quity must take into account the state's strong interest in proceeding with its judgment and [the petitioner's] obvious attempt at manipulation . . . There is no good reason for this abusive delay, which has been compounded by last-minute attempts to manipulate the judicial process."
Jackson v. Danberg
594 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 193 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding the Baze plurality opinion controls under Marks because "any lethal injection protocol constitutionally acceptable to the plurality would invariably pass" Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia's standard
Benda v. Grand Lodge of Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers
584 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1978) Cited 298 times
Noting that if the balance of hardships "tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly"
Dymo Industries, Inc. v. Tapeprinter, Inc.
326 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1964) Cited 369 times
Holding that in order to prevail, the moving party must show that a legal remedy is inadequate, meaning that the moving party is faced with an immediate and irreparable injury for which it cannot be compensated with money damages
Dollar Rent a Car, Wash. v. Travelers Indem
774 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 111 times
Finding that going out of business is not, by itself, irreparable injury
Sardi's Restaurant Corp. v. Sardie
755 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 79 times
Affirming a district court order that permitted the defendant to continue using his name in a restaurant's title, but only if he posted notices “disclaiming any connection with” a similarly named New York restaurant
Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
Fed. R. Evid. 201 Cited 28,526 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."
Rule 24 - Proceeding in Forma Pauperis
Fed. R. App. P. 24 Cited 19,347 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that "[t]he simple and expeditious motion procedure" set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 24, "rather than an appeal from . . . the certification of lack of good faith, [is] the proper procedure for calling in question the correctness of the action of the district court"
Section 3349.4.5 - Administration of the Lethal Injection Chemicals. [Repealed]
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3349.4.5 Cited 2 times
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3349.4.5 Note: Authority cited: Section 5058, Penal Code. Reference: Sections 190, 3600, 3603, 3604 and 5054, Penal Code; United States Constitution, Amendment VIII; California Constitution, Art. 1, Sections 17, 27; and Baze v. Rees (2008) 553 U.S.35. 1. New section filed 7-30-2010; operative 8-29-2010 (Register 2010, No. 31). 2. Change without regulatory effect repealing section filed 11-5-2015 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register

Morales v. Beard, et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that "a plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief has a "requirement for substantial proof is much higher" than a defendant's summary judgment motion

Holding in the Eighth Amendment context that the government's choice of drug can violate the Constitution

Holding Viriginia's lethal injection protocol does not violate Eighth Amendment

Holding a plaintiff must show that he will experience more than "any minor pain involved in multiple attempts to find an adequate vein."

Finding "[e]quity must take into account the state's strong interest in proceeding with its judgment and [the petitioner's] obvious attempt at manipulation . . . There is no good reason for this abusive delay, which has been compounded by last-minute attempts to manipulate the judicial process."

Holding the Baze plurality opinion controls under Marks because "any lethal injection protocol constitutionally acceptable to the plurality would invariably pass" Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia's standard

Noting that if the balance of hardships "tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly"

Holding that in order to prevail, the moving party must show that a legal remedy is inadequate, meaning that the moving party is faced with an immediate and irreparable injury for which it cannot be compensated with money damages

Finding that going out of business is not, by itself, irreparable injury

Affirming a district court order that permitted the defendant to continue using his name in a restaurant's title, but only if he posted notices “disclaiming any connection with” a similarly named New York restaurant

Recognizing that "[t]he simple and expeditious motion procedure" set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 24, "rather than an appeal from . . . the certification of lack of good faith, [is] the proper procedure for calling in question the correctness of the action of the district court"