context: With these principles in mind, it seems to me the majority reads too much into Winter. In doing so, they take the minority position among circuits to have considered the issue.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 802 F.3d 558, 569-71
citation_a.parenthetical: applying sliding scale test for a stay pending appeal post-Winter
citation_a.sentence: See Alliance for the Wild Rock ies, 682 F.3d at 1134-35 (holding that a “serious questions” version of the sliding scale approach to preliminary injunctions survives Winter); Citigroup, 598 F.3d at 35-38 (2d Cir. 2010) (same); Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009) (same); see also Revel AC, Inc. v. IDEA Boardwalk LLC, 802 F.3d 558, 569-71 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying sliding scale test for a stay pending appeal post-Winter).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 682 F.3d 1134, 1134-35
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that a "serious questions" version of the sliding scale approach to preliminary injunctions survives Winter
citation_b.sentence: See Alliance for the Wild Rock ies, 682 F.3d at 1134-35 (holding that a “serious questions” version of the sliding scale approach to preliminary injunctions survives Winter); Citigroup, 598 F.3d at 35-38 (2d Cir. 2010) (same); Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009) (same); see also Revel AC, Inc. v. IDEA Boardwalk LLC, 802 F.3d 558, 569-71 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying sliding scale test for a stay pending appeal post-Winter).