Opinion ID: 1551127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: General Standards Applicable to the Review of the Grant of Injunctive Relief

Text: Our review of a preliminary injunction is limited because we do not now finally determine the merits of the parties' arguments. LeJeune v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 381 Md. 288, 300, 849 A.2d 451, 458 (2004) (citing Department of Transportation v. Armacost, 299 Md. 392, 404, 474 A.2d 191, 197 (1984)) (Internal quotations omitted). We review only whether the trial court properly granted the preliminary injunction. Fogle v. H & G Restaurant, 337 Md. 441, 456, 654 A.2d 449, 455 (1995); see also State Dep't v. Baltimore County, 281 Md. 548, 550, 383 A.2d 51, 53 (1977) (stating that it is a rare instance in which a trial court's discretionary decision to grant or to deny a preliminary injunction will be disturbed by this Court). In reviewing a trial court's decision to issue a preliminary injunction, we determine whether the trial judge exercised sound discretion in examining the four factors that must be found. . . . LeJeune, 381 Md. at 300, 849 A.2d at 458 (citing Lerner v. Lerner, 306 Md. 771, 776, 511 A.2d 501, 504 (1986)). The four factors that the trial judge examines when considering the appropriateness of granting a preliminary injunction include: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; (2) the balance of convenience determined by whether greater injury would be done to the defendant by granting the injunction than would result from its refusal;[] (3) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted; and (4) the public interest. Armacost, 299 Md. at 404-05, 474 A.2d at 197 (citing State Dep't v. Baltimore County, 281 Md. at 554-57, 383 A.2d at 55). The party seeking the preliminary injunction has the burden of adducing facts necessary to satisfy these factors. Fogle, 337 Md. at 456, 654 A.2d at 456. The failure to prove the existence of even one of the four factors precludes the grant of injunctive relief. Id. With regard to the factor of the likelihood of success on the merits, the party seeking the interlocutory injunction must establish that it has a real probability of prevailing on the merits, not merely a remote possibility of doing so. Id. Yet, even with respect to a discretionary matter, a trial court must exercise its discretion in accordance with correct legal standards. LeJeune, 381 Md. at 301, 849 A.2d at 459 (Citation omitted). We review de novo a trial judge's decision involving a purely legal question. Matthews v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Com'n, 368 Md. 71, 92, 792 A.2d 288, 301 (2002). We apply the more deferential abuse of discretion standard to a trial judge's ruling involving a balancing of interests. Id. In the present case, the Circuit Court's determination of the likelihood of success on the merits is a question of law. See Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604, 861 A.2d 78, 80 (2004) (noting that because interpretation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and Constitution . . . [is] appropriately classified as [a] question[] of law, we review the issue[] de novo ). Consequently, we apply the de novo standard to that factor, but the more deferential abuse of discretion standard to the trial judge's determinations as to the remaining three factors.