Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

California First Amendment Coalition v. Arthur Calderon

92 F.3d 1191

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1996-08-05
Topic
general

92 F.3d 1191 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. CALIFORNIA FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arthur CALDERON, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 96-15798. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed California First Amendment Coalition v. Arthur Calderon. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions

92 F.3d 1191

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
CALIFORNIA FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Arthur CALDERON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 96-15798.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 29, 1996.*
Decided Aug. 5, 1996.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

This appeal from the district court's order granting appellees' motion for preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

3

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. See Gregorio T. v. Wilson, 59 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (9th Cir.1995). The record before us shows that the court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellees had demonstrated the existence of serious legal questions and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of appellees and in granting preliminary injunctive relief. See id. The court's factual findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous. See id. Accordingly, the court's order granting the preliminary injunction is affirmed.

4

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4; 9th Cir.R. 3-3(d)

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3