Case Citator › Leary v. Daeschner

Leary v. Daeschner

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

Overruled in part
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
228 F.3d 729
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
67 of 67
Citing cases (total)
67
Treatment dates
2003–2025
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Leary v. Daeschner was overruled in part on the standard for preliminary injunctions. The Sixth Circuit held that a party must show irreparable injury, rejecting Leary's statement that none of the four injunction factors is a prerequisite.
More on how this was screened

The court also kept the separate injunction standard under the National Labor Relations Act outside Leary's general four-factor test. Both treatments are listed below. All 67 flagged citations have been read; Leary's holdings on teacher speech and procedural due process were not displaced by these decisions.

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.

67 later cases cite Leary v. Daeschner; 67 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 Leary v. Daeschner?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Sixth Circuit held that Winter displaced Leary's statement that the four preliminary injunction factors are all optional: irreparable injury is required.

    EOG Resources, Inc. v. Lucky Land Management, LLC · Sixth Circuit · filed

    The district court here, for example, relying on one of our old cases, asserted that the four factors “are to be balanced against one another and should not be considered prerequisites to the grant of a preliminary injunction.” EOG, 2024 WL 1193824, at *4 (quoting Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000)). ... That was erroneous. Any of our old cases that might have endorsed that approach were abrogated by the Supreme Court in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7;
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Sixth Circuit declined to extend Leary's general four-factor injunction test to petitions under § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, applying its separate reasonable-cause and just-and-proper standard instead.

    Ahearn v. Jackson Hospital Corporation · Sixth Circuit · filed

    The Hospital argues that the more "traditional" framework for reviewing petitions for injunctions is correct in this context and urges this Court to reverse on this basis. The traditional framework is the four-factor test employed by this Court in the context of other petitions for injunctions, and requires a district court to consider ... See Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir.2000). We disagree with the Hospital.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Leary v. Daeschner 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