Legal Opinion
East v. Saks
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 29, 1925No. 7 Div. 575PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
Conceding that the bill of complaint does not present a case for injunctive relief on account of irreparable injury to complainants’ land, we think it does show such a disturbance of the use of the land as, upon settled principles of equity jurisprudence, will warrant such relief. Woodstock, etc., Corporation v. Quinn, 201 Ala. 681, 79 So. 253; Rice v. Davidson, 206 Ala. 226, 89 So. 600; Deegan v. Neville, 127 Ala. 471, 29 So. 173, 85 Am. St. Rep. 137; 32 Corp. Jur. 139, § 185.
The case of Central I. & C. Co. v. Vandenheuk, 147 Ala. 546, 41 So. 145, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 570, 119 Am. St. Rep.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Walters v. McElroySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Clifton Iron Co. v. DyeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Rice v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Central Iron & Coal Co. v. VandenheukSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- Woodstock Operating Corporation v. QuinnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Crowson v. CodySupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Milbert v. Carl Carbon, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1965
- Martin Bldg. Co. v. Imperial Laundry Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- American Book Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Henderson v. HendersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.