Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/1301/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/1301/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
OPM v. AFGE, 473 U.S. 1301 (1985)
Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
No. A-5
Decided July 5, 1985
473 U.S. 1301
Syllabus
An application to vacate the Court of Appeals' June 29, 1985, order -- which, inter alia, directed that the July 1, 1985, effective date of certain new regulations of applicant Office of Personnel Management be stayed until further order of that court -- is granted. A fews days before the effective date of the regulations, which allow federal agencies to give more weight to merit and less weight to seniority in personnel decisions, respondent sought a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the regulations from the District Court, which denied the requested order but explicitly contemplated a prompt hearing on a preliminary injunction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in addition to staying the effective date of the regulations, ordered that respondent's emergency motion for injunctive relief from that court be held in abeyance, and that the District Court decide by July 10, 1985, "any motion for a preliminary injunction." The established rule is that denials of temporary restraining orders are ordinarily not appealable, and the Court of Appeals erred in reasoning that, because a hearing on a preliminary injunction could not be held before the regulations went into effect, the District Court's denial of the temporary restraining order was tantamount to a denial of a preliminary injunction. The authorities relied upon by the Court of Appeals relate to grants, rather than, as here, denials of temporary restraining orders. Thus, the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review the District Court's denial of the temporary restraining order, and should have dismissed the appeal, thereby allowing respondent to proceed in the District Court on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
