District Judge.” Clemons v. Bd. of Educ., 228 F.2d 853, 857 (6th Cir.1956); accord id. at 859 (Stewart, J., concurring); id. at 860 (Miller, J., dissenting). This implies that we review only for abuse of discretion. Nevertheless, although the court below had discretion regarding whether to grant a broader injunction or not, it abused this discretion when it failed to address the issue at all. Cf. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (“The grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion.”); Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 284 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs briefed the merits of their sewer
holding that with regard to preliminary injunction a district court abuses its discretion if it fails to make specific findings regarding the various factors it is required to consider recognizing that the district court is not bound by its prior factual findings determined in a preliminary injunction hearing holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction holding a court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction