Legal Opinion

Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 2, 1950No. 10205_1PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

This is a motion on the part of the appellees in the above entitled case to vacate an injunction issued pending appeal by the Judge of the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appellees say that the learned trial judge in issuing the injunction did not follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., because no reasons were assigned for the injunction given. The rule pointed to as supporting the argument for vacating the injunction is Rule 65(d). The words in that rule are certainly about as peremptory as language can be made. It says that “Every order granting an injunction and…

2Cited by21 opinions

  1. United States v. El-O-Pathic Pharmacy United States v. Hudson Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
  2. Mireille R. Alberti v. Mary Ruth CruiseCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1967
  3. Brumby Metals, Inc. v. BargenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1960
  4. Gonzalez v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1952
  5. Commercial Security Bank v. Walker Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1972

16 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