The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Norml) v. Francis M. Mullen
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS (NORML), Et Al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Francis M. MULLEN, Et Al., Defendants/Appellants
Opinion
ORDER This case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the preliminary injunction in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in California v. Ciraolo, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1809 , 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986), and Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1819 , 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986). In addition, the district court may choose to review the specific terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 in light of those same two cases.
The district court has thirty days to make any modifications to the preliminary injunction it deems necessary. Until it does, however, the entire preliminary injunction shall remain in effect. In all other respects, we sustain the preliminary injunction under the standard of our circuit that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the seriousness of the questions involved and the balance of hardships required it.
Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir.1984). We retain jurisdiction to review any appeals from the modification of the preliminary injunction.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(ordering that an injunction remain in place while the district court considers whether the injunction should be modified)
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.