Case Citator › Stuhlbarg International Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.

Stuhlbarg International Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.

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

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
240 F.3d 832
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
44 of 44
Citing cases (total)
44
Treatment dates
2008
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Stuhlbarg International Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co. was abrogated in part. The Supreme Court rejected its preliminary injunction standard allowing relief on a possibility of irreparable harm.
More on how this was screened

That treatment is listed below. All 44 flagged citations have been read; later courts continue to use Stuhlbarg's separate rule that temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions receive substantially the same analysis.

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.

44 later cases cite Stuhlbarg International Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.; 44 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 Stuhlbarg International Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co.?

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 rejected Stuhlbarg's allowance of an injunction based only on possible irreparable harm.

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

    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.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Stuhlbarg International Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co. 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