Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cieslikowski v. Radecki

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 20, 1955No. 4863Published

1DissentConn, J.

I respectfully dissent from the conclusion of my associates and feel constrained to set forth my reasons therefor, and as briefly as possible.

Before entering upon the merits of the case, I wish to state that I do not concur in the general observation in the majority opinion that the vacation of an order for a temporary injunction in this case lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. I have read several cases where this issue was considered and it is my understanding that in an action for injunction wherein the ultimate relief sought is the adjudication of plaintiff’s property…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Jones v. First National Bank of BellaireOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Hersch v. Home Sav & Loan Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1938
  3. Wioland v. Mayflower Motors, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1947
  4. Tipling v. Randall Park Holding Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1952
  5. Barnhart v. AikenOhio Court of Appeals · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API