Cited by

¶21 DKC argues the court abused its discretion in denying DKC’s request for a preliminary injunction because it did not consider and did not make findings regarding the four factors (“the Shoen factors”)

¶17 “Injunctive relief is available only when the injury is ‘not remediable by damages.’” ¶ 18 (App. 2023) ().

“Unless the trial judge either made a mistake of law…or clearly erred in finding the facts or applying them to the legal criteria…we must affirm.”

(listing factors to consider in issuing a preliminary injunction).

A. Breach of Contract ¶14 Injunctive relief is available only where the possibility of irreparable injury is “not remediable by damages.” (explaining that a party must show “[t]he possibility of irreparable injury .

An abuse of discretion exists where the trial court “clearly erred in finding the facts or applying them to the legal criteria for granting an injunction,” or “if the [trial] court applied the incorrect substantive law,” TP Racing, L.L.L.P.

see also Clay v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass’n, Inc.

1 Order of stay and effective refusal of preliminary injunction ¶9 We review a trial court's grant of stay for an abuse of discretion, Tri City Nat'l Bank v. Barth , , ¶ 10, and review the denial of preliminary injunction under that same standard, Shoen v. Shoen , , 62, , 791 (App. 1990).

That rule “precludes judicial inquiry into actions taken by a director in good faith and in exercise of honest judgment in the legitimate and lawful furtherance of a corporate purpose.”

Shoen v. Shoen , , 65, , 794 (App. 1990).

¶ 18 (App. 2008), and a “strong likelihood that [it] will succeed at trial on the merits.”