ПЕРЕСМОТР РЕШЕНИЙ О ВВЕДЕНИИ ОБЕСПЕЧИТЕЛЬНЫХ МЕР В ФЕДЕРАЛЬНЫХ СУДАХ США

Abstract

Under American rules, a very important factor for a court to consider when granting a preliminary injunction is the likelihood of success on the merits. To estimate this likelihood, the court must of course decide which legal provisions are applicable the parties’ dispute. And if the court errs in interpretation or application of those provisions, a party may successfully appeal to a higher court! As a result, the legal questions that must be answered to resolve the dispute on the merits are sometimes hotly and at great length discussed on the preliminary injunction stage, with appeals up to the highest-instance court. The ratios stated by higherinstance court in decisions on preliminary injunctions often become decisive when the dispute is resolved on the merits. Moreover, after the highest court ruled on a disputable issue of law in the preliminary injunction discussion, continuing the dispute may become redundant. Knowing the facts of the case (even if they are not yet formally established by a court) the parties often can easily understand who loses and who wins. After that it normally makes sense to settle out of court instead of wasting time and money for the process, the outcome of which is practically predetermined. Because of that many court orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions are far from being just “run-of-the-mill” ones. They may be very important for the ultimate outcome of the case and often contain detailed arguments on disputable issues of law, sometimes taking dozens of pages.