McGirr v. Rehme

28 Citing cases

  1. Just City, Inc. v. Bonner

    2:24-cv-02540-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 29, 2024)

    S. Glazer's Distribs. of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing, Co., 860 F.3d 844, 848-49 (6th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, courts in the Sixth Circuit consider “(1) the movant's chances of succeeding on the merits; (2) if the movant would likely be permanently harmed absent the injunction; (3) whether the injunction would cause substantial harm to third parties; and (4) whether the injunction would serve the public interest.” McGirr v. Rehme, 891 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2018).

  2. Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear

    455 F. Supp. 3d 342 (W.D. Ky. 2020)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In determining whether to grant a temporary restraining order, the Court considers the same four factors applicable to a motion for preliminary injunction: (1) the movant's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant "would likely be permanently harmed absent the injunction; (3) whether the injunction would cause substantial harm to third parties; and (4) whether the injunction would serve the public interest." McGirr v. Rehme , 891 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing S. Glazer's Distribs. of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co. , 860 F.3d 844, 849 (6th Cir. 2017) ); seeOhio Republican Party v. Brunner , 543 F.3d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2008). "Although no one factor is controlling, a finding that there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits is usually fatal."

  3. Nexus Gas Transmission, LLC v. City of Green

    No. 18-3325 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    A. Preliminary Injunction OrderWe review a district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. McGirr v. Rehme, 891 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2018). We will not disturb that decision unless it "relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard."

  4. Memphis Ctr. for Reprod. Health v. Slatery

    14 F.4th 409 (6th Cir. 2021)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that similar prohibitions under Tennessee law were likely unconstitutionally vague

    We review a district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. McGirr v. Rehme , 891 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2018). Thus, we may disturb the district court decision only if the decision "relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard."

  5. Jet Midwest Int'l Co. v. Jet Midwest Grp.

    953 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2020)   Cited 40 times
    Stating similar test

    For example, the Sixth Circuit explained that a monetary judgment alone was not enough to protect the plaintiffs from irreparable harm because the defendant continued to avoid payment after the judgment against him and concealed assets to evade collection efforts. McGirr v. Rehme , 891 F.3d 603, 613–14 (6th Cir. 2018). Neither Ohadi nor Woolley has proven that Jet Midwest lacks any interest in the assets listed for the foreclosure sale.

  6. Schmitt v. LaRose

    933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019)   Cited 54 times
    Holding ballot-initiative process not a prior restraint in facial challenge to statute under First Amendment and analyzing under Anderson-Burdick framework

    However, we may affirm a district court's injunction order for any reason supported by the record. McGirr v. Rehme , 891 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we will evaluate Plaintiffs' claim under both the First Amendment and procedural due process.

  7. Benjamin v. Stemple

    915 F.3d 1066 (6th Cir. 2019)   Cited 15 times

    Failure of the one establishes dim prospects of success for the other. SeeMcGirr v. Rehme , 891 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

  8. Miller v. Parker

    910 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2018)   Cited 9 times

    Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Miller’s motion for a preliminary injunction. We review the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. McGirr v. Rehme , 891 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2018). In considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction, courts balance four factors: (1) whether the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of equitable relief; (3) whether the injunction will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest is best served by issuing the injunction.

  9. Candid Ventures LLC v. Nestlings, Inc.

    1:24-cv-528 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 30, 2024)

    Additionally, "the strong likelihood that a judgment-debtor would thwart collection efforts through the 'concealment and dissipation of assets' can establish irreparable harm." United States v. Kelly, No. 2:21-CV-12570,2021WL12302024, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3,2021) (citing McGirr v. Rehme, 891 F.3d 603,613-14 (6th Cir. 2018); Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P'ship, 731 F.3d 608, 628 (6th Cir. 2013) (affirming an asset-freezing injunction because the defendant had "engaged in a number of... questionable financial transactions" suggesting a threat of asset dissipation)). As explained, the Defendants in this case, among other things, allegedly conspired to deprive Plaintiff of its rights as a preferred shareholder and secured creditor by improperly entering into the asset transfer agreement with Dew Ventures.

  10. Butch's Best, LLC v. Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses, LLC

    2:23-CV-13045-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. Dec. 5, 2023)

    Ram Produce Distrib., LLC v. Moceri Produce, Inc., No. 08-13319, 2008 WL 11355452, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 1, 2008) (Roberts, J.); see also McGirr v. Rehme, 891 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2018). But there is a heightened emphasis on irreparable harm, as TROs are considered extraordinary remedies that run against well-recognized principles requiring “reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard [to be] granted [to] both sides of a dispute.” Reed v. Cleveland Bd. of Ed., 581 F.2d 570, 573 (6th Cir. 1978) (internal quotations omitted).