Case Citator › The Lands Council v. McNair

The Lands Council v. McNair

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
537 F.3d 981
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
173 of 173
Citing cases (total)
543
Treatment dates
2008
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. The Lands Council v. McNair has been fully reviewed: all 173 flagged citations have been read, with one confirmed abrogating treatment listed below. Multiple Ninth Circuit opinions recognized that the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. abrogated Lands Council's preliminary-injunction “possibility” standard.
More on how this was screened

The entry is anchored on Winter itself. The other opinions applied Lands Council positively, reported its en banc treatment of older circuit precedent, carried the Winter history parenthetical, or reaffirmed Lands Council's surviving serious-questions test.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

543 later cases cite The Lands Council v. McNair; 173 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on The Lands Council v. McNair?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court abrogated Lands Council's rule permitting preliminary injunctive relief on a mere possibility of irreparable harm and required a showing that irreparable injury is likely.

    Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We agree with the Navy that the Ninth Circuit’s “possibility” standard is too lenient. Our frequently reiterated standard requires plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 103 (1983); Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U. S. 423, 441 (1974); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 502 (1974); see also 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2948.1, p. 139 (2d ed. 1995) (hereinafter Wright & Miller) (applicant must demonstrate that in the absence of a preliminary injunction, “the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered”); id., at 154-155 (“[A] preliminary injunction will not be issued simply to prevent the possibility of some remote future injury”). Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with our characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U. S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads The Lands Council v. McNair and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace