![misstates the law and is riddled with misreadings and misquotations.19 The Eighth
Circuit does not apply—and has specifically rejected—a heightened standard for
mandatory injunctions. Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc., 729 F.2d 589, 591–92 (8th
Cir. 1984).20
19 Perhaps most egregiously, Defendants twice quote Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc), for the propositions that: (a) mandatory injunctions are “particularly disfavored,” and (b) Plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits by a “heavy and compelling weight of evidence” rather than a fair chance of success. Neither of these quotes appear in Planned Parenthood, nor in any Eighth Circuit case the Court has found that addresses injunctions. Even under the most charitable of readings, Planned Parenthood cannot possibly stand for such a proposition; the case discusses the heightened burden that applies to enjoining state statutes and does not involve mandatory injunctions at all. Planned Parenthood, 530 F.3d at 730. This portion of Defendants’ brief included other mis-citations as well. The Court questioned Defendants’ counsel at the hearing and received unsatisfactory responses. (Tr. at 265–68.)
20 If “the status quo is a condition not of rest, but of action, and the condition of rest ...
will cause irreparable harm, a mandatory preliminary injunction is proper.” Ferry-Morse. The last uncontested period—thus the status quo—was pre-Surge; the Court is not aware of access to counsel issues at Whipple before then. Id. at 591–92 (stating that “[i]t was this status quo that was destroyed by the action of [defendant], and we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in restoring the earlier relationship by requiring” an affirmative act from defendant). Even if the Eighth Circuit were to adopt a heightened standard, given the extent and severity of Defendants’ constitutional violations, Plaintiffs have met it.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:fqns6kmbnievry7kuaht7674/bafkreibqjg55zcztysrujj337i3nladj5j6tv263ru4l54wnq45w244sxi)
misstates the law and is riddled with misreadings and misquotations.19 The Eighth
Circuit does not apply—and has specifically rejected—a heightened standard for
mandatory injunctions. Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc., 729 F.2d 589, 591–92 (8th
Cir. 1984).20
19 Perhaps most egregiously, Defendants twice quote Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc), for the propositions that: (a) mandatory injunctions are “particularly disfavored,” and (b) Plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits by a “heavy and compelling weight of evidence” rather than a fair chance of success. Neither of these quotes appear in Planned Parenthood, nor in any Eighth Circuit case the Court has found that addresses injunctions. Even under the most charitable of readings, Planned Parenthood cannot possibly stand for such a proposition; the case discusses the heightened burden that applies to enjoining state statutes and does not involve mandatory injunctions at all. Planned Parenthood, 530 F.3d at 730. This portion of Defendants’ brief included other mis-citations as well. The Court questioned Defendants’ counsel at the hearing and received unsatisfactory responses. (Tr. at 265–68.)
20 If “the status quo is a condition not of rest, but of action, and the condition of rest ...
will cause irreparable harm, a mandatory preliminary injunction is proper.” Ferry-Morse. The last uncontested period—thus the status quo—was pre-Surge; the Court is not aware of access to counsel issues at Whipple before then. Id. at 591–92 (stating that “[i]t was this status quo that was destroyed by the action of [defendant], and we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in restoring the earlier relationship by requiring” an affirmative act from defendant). Even if the Eighth Circuit were to adopt a heightened standard, given the extent and severity of Defendants’ constitutional violations, Plaintiffs have met it.
Your memory would be right in a lot of Circuits, but *not* in the Eighth.
That likely contributed to why the AI got it wrong, and is also a great example of why a lawyer's gut check is never going to be enough to review AI without actually doing the research.
