Martinez v. Mathews

4 Citing briefs

  1. America Unites for Kids et al v. Sandra Lyon et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re

    Filed April 13, 2015

    This Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request for mandatory injunction because the facts and law do not “‘clearly favor the moving party.’” Stanley, 13 F.3d at 1320 (quoting Martinez, 544 F.2d at 1243). A. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish a Likelihood of Success on the Merits.

  2. Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. United States of America et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed December 4, 2015

    Such “[m]andatory preliminary relief, which goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976). The motion should be denied.

  3. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International v. Michael O Leavitt et al

    OPPOSITION to APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to to suspend approval of the ANDA 4

    Filed April 28, 2008

    A mandatory injunction "`goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite [and] is particularly disfavored.'" Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976)). In this case, Valeant is seeking more than maintaining the status quo.

  4. Castro et al v. Freeman et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to 5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order

    Filed September 16, 2009

    Moreover, “[m]andatory preliminary relief, which goes beyond simply maintaining the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976); see also Miami Beach Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Callander, 256 F.2d 410, 415 (5th Cir. 1958) (a mandatory preliminary injunction “should not be granted except in rare circumstances in which the facts and law are clearly in favor of the moving party.”)