Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8690792
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Johnson v. Sullivan
No. 8690792 · Decided November 5, 2008
No. 8690792·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 5, 2008
Citation
No. 8690792
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** This appeal from the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1), and we affirm. *673 We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunction relief. See Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002 , 1004-05 (9th Cir.1995). We conclude that the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant had failed to demonstrate the threat of imminent irreparable harm and in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See id. In addition, we conclude that the district court’s findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** This appeal from the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** This appeal from the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3.
02Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunction relief.
03We conclude that the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant had failed to demonstrate the threat of imminent irreparable harm and in denying preliminary injunctive reli
04In addition, we conclude that the district court’s findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** This appeal from the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Johnson v. Sullivan in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 5, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8690792 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.