Success is hard to define. We think we know it when we see it. But we seldom do. In fact, more often than not we actually misidentify things such as material abundance, popularity or power as “success.” They can in fact be correlative with success, but they are not success or even necessarily proof of success.
Thankfully as we get older this becomes more and more intuitive to us. We learn to focus our inquiry when thinking about success. The old maxim that “no man is a hero to his valet” reminds us that we are all ultimately only human. The march of mortality as well prevents any illusion to the contrary from lodging with sustained firmness in any but the most unsuccessfully matured mind. So we come to realize there are a lot of ways to define to success, to measure it, and to weigh it in terms of the overall picture of what or who it is we’re considering.
We also, it is to be hoped, stop fearing failure, and learn what it is there for, and how there is no success without it.
Now, this blog’s title is an allusion to one of the criteria used by courts to decide whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction in a civil litigation matter. Typically the elements weighed by a judge are (a) a balancing of harms as between what will happen if an injunction does issue, compared to if it does not; (b) whether the harm sought to be prevented is “irreparable harm”–meaning the relief sought is the only way to compensate the party seeking it or whether plain old money will do the trick without too much guesswork or speculation regarding the harm done; (c) a consideration of whether the issuance of the injunction will be in the public interest and (d) whether the party seeking the injunction can show its likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying legal claim.
This last element requires a judge to do a quick once-over of “the case” presented to him and evaluate whether the party seeking the injunction has put forth a plausible and appropriately authenticated prima facie factual set of claims which, in the framework of the applicable legal doctrines set out by the plaintiff, looks like a winner. Typically along with the issuance of a preliminary injunction, a court will require the plaintiff to post a bond, so that if something material turns out to have been misrepresented or misunderstood and harm results to the enjoined party, the court knows that party has recourse to the bond for compensation.
Blogging, however, does not require such profound undertakings.
Read the rest of this entry »
Read the rest of this entry »
I don’t know much about the “likelihood of success on the merits” part, but I am impressed by the way another traditional element of the injunction question comes out–a little something we call “weighing of harms”:
In various countries, plaintiffs have sought court orders to halt the operation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, with the most extraordinary of allegations: that the experiment may create a black hole that will devour the Earth.
Up until now, the various lawsuits filed against the LHC have faltered. But if the right kind of claim is filed in the proper court, a judge may soon have to face the question of whether an injunction might be needed to save the world.
Is that the name of the language of comment spam, spoken in some weird world? Check this out, plucked out of the comments waiting for approval on my other blog:
I scanned sites on like topic, but never saw your blog. I summed it to dearies and i’ll regular reader.
I love the “dearies” part. I would love it if somewhat would tell me what radio station or remote ham radio broadcast these people are listening to in their attempts to simulate our language.
“Summed it to dearies”! That is rich.