Legal Opinion

Stim v. Bezinec

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 19, 1937No. Appeal, 410PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from a decree awarding a preliminary injunction and the dismissal of preliminary objections thereto. Appellants contend that the injunction was improperly granted because none of the affidavits, accompanying the bill, stated that “immediate and irreparable loss or damage will result to the plaintiffs before the matter can be heard on notice,” as required by our Equity Rule 38.

The established practice of this court on appeal from the granting or refusal of a preliminary injunction is to refrain from the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case or the law…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Philadelphia Record Co. v. Curtis-Martin Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. National Automobile Service Inc. v. BarfodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Juniata Water & Water Power Co. v. Wilson Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  4. Ross Common Water Co. v. Blue Mountain Consolidated Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Annenberg v. RobertsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Rubin v. BaileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  3. Brooks v. ChinnLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Harrisburg Dairies, Inc. v. EisamanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API