Legal Opinion · Concurrence
In re Marriage of Betts
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided June 28, 1990No. Nos. 4—89—0443, 4—89—0455 consPublished
1Concurrence
JUSTICE LUND,
specially concurring:
I disagree with my esteemed brethren’s conclusion that the TRO did not go beyond what was necessary to preserve the status quo. A temporary restraining order (TRO) without notice is not favored and should go no further than is essential to safeguard the rights of the plaintiff. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 11—101; Geesbreght v. Geesbreght (1978), 63 Ill. App. 3d 37, 379 N.E.2d 738; 21A Ill. L. & Prac. Injunctions §142 (1977).) Even with notice, it should only be as broad as is essential to safeguard the rights of the plaintiff. (Village of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Village of Wilsonville v. SCA Services, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1981
- Allendorf v. DailyIllinois Supreme Court · 1955
- Welch v. City of EvanstonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989
- Continental-Midwest Corp. v. Hotel Sherman, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1957
- Geesbreght v. GeesbreghtAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978