Legal Opinion

Murray v. Hill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 26, 1948No. Appeal, 130PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The decree of the court below is affirmed on the authority of Commonwealth v. Katz, 281 Pa. 287,126 A. 765, where this Court said:

“Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree which refuses, grants or continues a preliminary injunction, we will look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below, and we will not further consider the merits of the case or pass upon the reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or that the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KatzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Borough of Sunbury v. Sunbury & Susquehanna Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  3. Holden v. LlewellynSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  4. Paxson's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lindenfelser v. LindenfelserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Keystone Guild, Inc. v. PappasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  3. Seligman & Latz of Pittsburgh, Inc. v. VernilloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  4. Parker v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  5. Summit Township v. FennellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API