Sykas v. Alvarez
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the CourtBarney, J.
The chancellor’s refusal to allow damages, consisting entirely of attorneys’ fees, upon dissolution of a temporary injunction granted ex parte, is the only matter at issue. In denying the motion for damages, the chancellor stated that he was, “unable to find that plaintiff was not equitably entitled to a temporary injunction at the time the injunction was granted.” Rule 41 of the Court of Chancery (12 V.S.A. App. III, R. 41), refers to the situation, “when the injunction will necessarily produce great and irreparable injury to the defendant if the claim of the plaintiff is not sustained,” and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Thompson v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1957
- Houghton v. GrimesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1930
- Powell v. WoodburySupreme Court of Vermont · 1912
- Spaulding & Kimball Co. v. Aetna Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Lillie v. LillieSupreme Court of Vermont · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Swanson v. Bishop Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1982
- Town of Milton v. BraultSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974
- ADE Software Corp. v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 2001