Dingley v. Buckner
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County, dissolving a preliminary injunction. John J. Covert, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court,
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The appeal is from an order dissolving a preliminary injunction. The grounds upon which the motion for a dissolution was made were stated as follows: ‘ ‘ 1st. That said plaintiffs, or any of them, are not entitled to any in junction in the above-entitled action. . . . 4th. That there are no sufficient grounds for the retention of said injunction. 5th. That said injunction was and is an abortive injunction. ’ ’ The second and third grounds stated are omitted, as they are covered by the first.
1. The facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient, we think, to justify the court in issuing the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Watson v. SutherlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Stewart v. Superior Court of San Diego Cty.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Kellogg v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- North v. PetersSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Respini v. PortaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rees v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1978
- Bowen v. MorrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Hicks v. ClaytonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Quist v. Empire Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1928