Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hatfield Township v. Lexon Insurance Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 23, 2011No. 1318 C.D. 2010Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Township has satisfied the strict requirements for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief. Simply, the trial court’s preliminary injunction to Lexon to pay $521,538.86 under a construction bond is an award of contract damages, which cannot be obtained in an equitable proceeding. A fortiori, a preliminary injunction to pay a discrete sum of money does not preserve the status quo but, rather, disturbs it. Accordingly, I would dissolve the trial court’s mandatory preliminary injunction.

T…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Mazzie v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Willing v. MazzoconeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. SwiftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  4. Commonwealth v. CowardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Purdy v. MasseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

5 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