Opinion ID: 2276751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Review of the Preliminary Injunction Factors

Text: `The decision to grant or deny preliminary injunctive relief is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.' District of Columbia v. Group Ins. Admin., 633 A.2d 2, 21 (D.C.1993) (quoting Stamenich v. Markovic, 462 A.2d 452, 456 (D.C.1983)). In reviewing the trial court's order modifying and extending the July 7, 1995 temporary restraining order, we are required to: (1) examine the trial court's findings and conclusions to see if they are sufficiently supported by the record; [and] (2) assure that the trial court's analysis reflects a resolution of all the issues which necessarily underlie the issuance of an injunction.... Id. at 22. A preliminary injunction may not be granted unless: the moving party has clearly demonstrated (1) that there is a substantial likelihood [it] will prevail on the merits; (2) that [it] is in danger of suffering irreparable harm during the pendency of the action; (3) that more harm will result to [it] from the denial of the injunction than will result to the defendant from its grant; and, in appropriate cases, (4) that the public interest will not be disserved by the issuance of the requested order. Id. at 21 (quoting Wieck v. Sterenbuch, 350 A.2d 384, 387 (D.C.1976)) (footnote omitted). Furthermore, In determining whether to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction, the most important inquiry is that concerning irreparable injury . . . because the primary justification for the issuance of a preliminary injunction `is always to prevent irreparable injury so as to preserve the court's ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits.' Id. at 22 (quoting Wieck, supra, 350 A.2d at 387-88) (quoting Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 576 (5th Cir.1974)).