Preliminary Injunction on Shareholder’s Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 77-102
Author(s):  
Chang-Wan Sohn
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 741-745 ◽  

On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump's most recent iteration of restrictions on entry to the United States by nationals from certain foreign countries. Following several rewrites of this travel ban, ensuing legal challenges, and lower court injunctions, the Court, in a five-to-four decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, reversed the latest ruling of a lower court that had granted a partial preliminary injunction against the ban. Although acknowledging that there was considerable evidence tying the travel ban to bias against Muslims, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs were nonetheless unlikely to succeed either in their statutory claim that Trump lacked the authority to impose this ban or in their constitutional claim that the ban violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court accordingly reversed the lower court's injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The ruling, based on the Trump administration's asserted national security interest, leaves in place travel restrictions imposed on nationals of seven countries—Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—only two of which are not Muslim-majority countries.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-412
Author(s):  
Emanuela Gambini

On March 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court of Utah, Central Division, decided in University of Utah Research Foundation, et al., v. Ambry Genetics Corporation, holding that “Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction”, as they “are unable to establish that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claims” nor “that the equitable factors support issuance of the requested injunction”.This case note gives an overview of the U.S. District Court's of Utah memorandum decision and order denying plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and discusses its implications for the implementation of the criterion of isolation to “synthetic” DNA sequences, such as primers and probes.


Author(s):  
Jason Allen Cody

This Article follows on the heels of an article I recently wrote that focuses on the online advertising activities of The Gator Corporation and legal implications of the preliminary injunction issued in that case.4 I previously concluded that Gator’s pop-up advertising scheme did not violate copyright law,5 but that it did violate trademark law, based in large on survey results showing significant consumer confusion at that point in time.6 To remove consumer confusion, I recommended that Gator: (1) notify Internet users more prominently about downloading Gator software; (2) remind consumers that they authorized pop-up ads to appear; (3) adequately display its trademarks in its pop-up ads; and (4) disclaim affiliation with URLs that have not authorized its ads.7


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document