How is that different from what was written?

The term preliminary judgment has no meaning in Federal litigation. Preliminary Injunction does as does a TRO which is what litigants usually seek initially -

imagine being like this

Some people would have taken the hint when Chris asked what they were doing, our friend is a bit slow

They're the reason I don't hang out with other attorneys.

Nah dog, it’s Friday

A TRO is a type of injunction, if this is what we’re doing.

Two different things. A TRO is an order of temporary duration issued by a court with or without notice to the other side. A TRO cannot exceed 14 days. An injunction is typically an order of permanent duration issued by a court after an evidentiary trial on the merits. I was not being rude

An injunction is a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another, or that compels a person to carry out a certain act. Injunctions can be both temporary and permanent. A TRO is a type of injunction.

That “TRO” doesn’t have the word injunction in it doesn’t make it not an injunction, it is, just like a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction. You were being both rude and wrong.

Read the rule - both terms are included in Fed Rule 65 governing injunctions and restraining orders. A Temporary Restraining Order is usually the first step toward obtaining a perm net injunction which is always the goal.

I’m not talking about the rule’s nomenclature, I’m talking about factual reality. Temporary restraining orders are a type of injunction.

Yes it is but it’s not permanent and it’s the first step. That wasn’t the point - it was the use of the term preliminary judgment. Let’s agree to disagree

My point was that even though in one sense what you said is wrong (“injunction” by itself is just a descriptor, and one that actually applies to a TRO), I did still know what you meant. Just as everyone knew what Chris meant by “preliminary judgment”