that currently exists,” Black’s Law Dictionary 1420 (7th ed.1999), and at the time the tribe filed suit the situation currently- existing was one in which (1) the state motor vehicle code was in force, (2) the tribal motor vehicle code was in force, and (3) approximately twenty tribal registrations and titles were in use. The preliminary injunction issued by the district court in essence “froze” that moment in time, giving (temporary) validity to the tribal registrations and titles already issued but no more. As the defendants themselves recognized, “[T]he Court took like a snapshot of the situation.” Aplts’ App. vol. III, at 79 (counsel for Mr. Brownlee at clarification hearing); see also Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 786 F.Supp. 1403, 1427 (N.D.Ind.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because the preliminary injunction issued by
holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit recognizing that the status quo could but need not consist of a photographic replication of the circumstances existing at the moment suit was filed holding with respect to another part of the plra that the court must determine the prisoners status on the date the suit or appeal is brought rather than at some other time holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition recognizing the defendants argument as one paralleling sentence manipulation but concluding that the status of the doctrine at the time was unclear