37 Cited authorities

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.
555 U.S. 7 (2008) Cited 16,781 times 56 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff must establish "that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm"
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council
490 U.S. 360 (1989) Cited 2,001 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
456 U.S. 305 (1982) Cited 1,768 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not mandate injunctions against its violation
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research
401 U.S. 321 (1971) Cited 2,497 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims based on continuing conspiracies accrue each time "a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiffs business"
Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen
541 U.S. 752 (2004) Cited 602 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the National Environmental Policy Act, an agency cannot be considered the legal "cause" of an action that it has no statutory discretion to avoid
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
598 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 569 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "our venerable standard for assessing a movant's probability of success on the merits remains valid [after the Supreme Court's decision in Winter]"
Faiveley Transp. v. Wabtec Corp.
559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 524 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "information concerning customer preferences and ordering patterns could easily be . . . obtained by contacting those customers directly," that information could not be deemed a trade secret
Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
409 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 580 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a request for preliminary injunction is not moot when the court has the ability to "offer effective relief"
Sierra Club v. Slater
120 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 1997) Cited 247 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the denial of the plaintiffs' request to take a deposition was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff had failed to show "how the deposition would have aided their opposition to summary judgment"
Plaza Health Laboratories, Inc. v. Perales
878 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 237 times
Holding that exigent circumstances permitted termination of a medical lab from the Medicaid program, when the lab had been illegally dumping hazardous waste
Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Cited 22,415 times 87 Legal Analyses
Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice
Section 139 - Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking and One Federal Decision
23 U.S.C. § 139 Cited 38 times 10 Legal Analyses
Directing the Secretary of Transportation to "allow for the use of programmatic approaches to conduct environmental reviews that" generate efficiencies on multiple metrics
Section 771.130 - Supplemental environmental impact statements
23 C.F.R. § 771.130 Cited 56 times
Providing that "[a]n EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines" certain circumstances exist

Yorkshire Towers Company L.P. et al v. United States Department of Transportation et al

37 Cited authorities

Holding that a plaintiff must establish "that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm"

Holding that courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )

Holding that Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not mandate injunctions against its violation

Holding that claims based on continuing conspiracies accrue each time "a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiffs business"

Holding that, under the National Environmental Policy Act, an agency cannot be considered the legal "cause" of an action that it has no statutory discretion to avoid

Holding that "our venerable standard for assessing a movant's probability of success on the merits remains valid [after the Supreme Court's decision in Winter]"

Holding that where "information concerning customer preferences and ordering patterns could easily be . . . obtained by contacting those customers directly," that information could not be deemed a trade secret

Holding that a request for preliminary injunction is not moot when the court has the ability to "offer effective relief"

Holding that the denial of the plaintiffs' request to take a deposition was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff had failed to show "how the deposition would have aided their opposition to summary judgment"

Holding that exigent circumstances permitted termination of a medical lab from the Medicaid program, when the lab had been illegally dumping hazardous waste

Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

Directing the Secretary of Transportation to "allow for the use of programmatic approaches to conduct environmental reviews that" generate efficiencies on multiple metrics

Providing that "[a]n EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines" certain circumstances exist