Case Citator › Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
632 F.3d 1127
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
49 of 49
Citing cases (total)
49
Treatment dates
2012–2015
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Three confirmed adverse treatments of Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell are listed below, after all 49 flagged citations were read. A Central District of California court refused to apply its preliminary injunction standard.
More on how this was screened

Two District of Nevada opinions construed its serious-questions route to require a reasonable probability of success on the merits. These district courts did not have authority to overrule the Ninth Circuit.

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.

49 later cases cite Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell; 49 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 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell?

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

Declined to follow

  • The court refused to apply Cottrell's preliminary injunction standard because it viewed the standard as conflicting with Winter and earlier Ninth Circuit authority.

    Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Barrydriller Content Systems, PLC · Central District of California · filed

    The Court will not apply the standard set forth in Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir.2011), as it views that standard as being in conflict with both the Supreme Court's ruling in Winter and the Ninth Circuit's own subsequent adoption of the Winter standard.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The court read Cottrell's serious-questions route to require at least a reasonable probability of success on the merits.

    Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Beckhoff Automation, LLC · District of Nevada · filed

    The Court must reconcile the cases by interpreting the Cottrell “serious questions” requirement ... “Serious questions going to the merits” must therefore mean that there is at least a reasonable probability of success on the merits.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court again read Cottrell's serious-questions route to require a reasonable probability of success on the merits.

    U.S. Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC · District of Nevada · filed

    The Court must reconcile the cases by interpreting the Cottrell “serious questions” requirement ... “Reasonable probability” appears to be the most lenient position on the sliding scale that can satisfy the requirement that the chance of success be “likely.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell 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