that a given harm or benefit is irreparable and why irreparability is
ways my central point: irreparability is the characteristic that
This argues against heavy reliance on the four irreparability factors.
Although the rules of inadequacy and irreparability require the plaintiff to establish a need for exclusionary relief, they never directly take into consideration the interests of anyone else--most notably, the defendant.
Once the rules of inadequacy, irreparability, and relative hardship are satisfied, courts are then required to ensure that the grant of the injunction would not run contrary to the public interest.
Together, these four rules--inadequacy, irreparability, relative hardship, and public interest considerations--constitute the traditional "four-factor" test for the grant of an injunction, which courts are obligated to apply.
184) When property rights were involved, courts deemed the irreparability and inadequacy components satisfied; implicit in that determination was the belief that property's element of exclusion could be protected only through injunctive relief.
Courts initially applied the irreparability and inadequacy criteria with significant regularity.
The four-factor test, with its emphasis on inadequacy and irreparability, has long been understood as involving little more than a cost-benefit analysis.