X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 7 / 43

85 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

7 / 43

Broderick Boys exists in West Sacramento or that the alleged gang or its members create a public nuisance within the Safety Zone.  They further contend the trial court erred in concluding there is a greater risk of harm from denying the temporary injunction than granting it.  Finally, defendants contend various provisions of the injunction are vague, overbroad or otherwise violate their constitutional rights.  

As our state Supreme Court explained in People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 (Acuna):  “At this initial stage in the proceeding, the scope of our inquiry is narrow.  We review an order granting a preliminary injunction under an abuse of discretion standard.  [Citations.]  Review is confined, in other words, to a consideration whether the trial court abused its discretion in ‘“evaluat[ing] two interrelated factors when deciding whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction.  The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial.  The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued.”’  [Citation.]  And although we will not ordinarily disturb the trial court’s ruling absent a showing of abuse, an order granting or denying interlocutory relief reflects nothing more than the superior court’s evaluation of the controversy on the record before it at the time of its ruling; it is not an adjudication of the ultimate merits of the dispute.”  (Id. at p. 1109.)  

7

Document info
Document views85
Page views85
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 20:39:43 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments