In IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, a governmental entity was seeking to enjoin the alleged violation of a zoning ordinance that specifically authorized injunctive relief as a remedy. In the context of a zoning dispute, the California Supreme Court modified the traditional test for determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction. The court wrote: "Accordingly, the propriety of an injunction must be judged by the following standard. Where a governmental entity seeking to enjoin the alleged violation of an ordinance which specifically provides for injunctive relief establishes that it is reasonably probable it will prevail on the merits, a rebuttable presumption arises that the potential harm to the public outweighs the potential harm to the defendant. If the defendant shows that it would suffer grave or irreparable harm from the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the court must then examine the relative actual harms to the parties. "Once the defendant has made such a showing, an injunction should issue only if -- after consideration of both (1) the degree of certainty of the outcome on the merits, and (2) consequences to each of the parties of granting or denying interim relief -- the trial court concludes that an injunction is proper. At this stage of the analysis, no hard and fast rule dictates which consideration must be accorded greater weight by the trial court. For example, if it appears fairly clear that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, a trial court might legitimately decide that an injunction should issue even though the plaintiff is unable to prevail in a balancing of the probable harms. On the other hand, the harm which the defendant might suffer if an injunction were issued may so outweigh that which the plaintiff might suffer in the absence of an injunction that the injunction should be denied even though the plaintiff appears likely to prevail on the merits."