Legal Opinion

Schenck v. Underhill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 20, 1923PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kelly, P. J.:

There is no reason, in this case, for departing from the rule frequently announced in this court that we will not interfere with *163the discretion of the Special Term in granting or refusing an injunction pendente lite save in exceptional cases, but that the action should be tried on its merits so that findings of fact and conclusions of law may be formulated before the rights of the parties are passed upon. (Bergen Beach Land Corporation v. City of New York, 192 App. Div. 884.) In the present condition of the equity calendar in Kings county this action, in which issue was joined in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Beardslee v. . IngrahamNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
  2. Underhill v. SchenckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  3. Bergen Beach Land Corp. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Underhill v. SchenckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  2. Young v. McQuerreyHawaii Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Madden v. AtkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
  4. Thompson v. Samson United Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Probolsky v. RubinbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923

1 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