About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


35 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 1 (2013)

handle is hein.journals/wnelr35 and id is 1 raw text is: WESTERN NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW Volume 35 2013 Number 1 ARTICLES PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARDS IN MASSACHUSETTS STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ARTHUR D. WOLF* ABSTRACT Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confonted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file. In a civil action where the plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction, the selection of a state or federal court may determine the success of the motion for temporary relief The reason is simple: state and federal courts frequently apply differing standards to such preliminary motions. Massachusetts state and federal courts apply different standards, although some courts have indicated to the contrary. In the federal courts, the matter of differing standards is compounded by the Professor of Law and Director, Institute for Legislative & Governmental Affairs, Western New England University School of Law. Prior to his teaching career, the author served as special counsel to Congressman Robert F. Drinan (4th C.D. MA) and as an attorney with the United States Department of Justice. The author gratefully aclnowledges the excellent research assistance that Head of Research Services Renee Rastorfer provided.