context: In deciding whether to impose the "extraordinary remedy" of an injunction, the court is required to consider whether a plaintiff has an adequate remedy or would suffer irreparable harm.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 3 F.3d 431, 431
citation_a.parenthetical: determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no "meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]"
citation_a.sentence: See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (stating that court first must consider “whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.”); FMC Corp., 3 F.3d at 431 (determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no “meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]”); see also Over-street Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44 (2000) (holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction
citation_b.sentence: See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1227-29 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (stating that court first must consider “whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the court withholds injunctive relief.”); FMC Corp., 3 F.3d at 431 (determining that irreparable harm is established where there is no “meaningful relief that can be applied retroactively[.]”); see also Over-street Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 728, 743-44 (2000) (holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction).