Legal Opinion
Cedar-Al Products, Inc. v. Chamberlain
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided November 30, 1987No. 9796-6-IIPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlexander, J.
Robert and Mary Chamberlain appeal an order of the Superior Court denying their motion to enforce a previously exonerated preliminary injunction bond. We hold that the trial court properly denied the motion, and we affirm.
Cedar-Al Products, Inc. commenced an action against the Chamberlains in Clallam County Superior Court to permanently enjoin the Chamberlains from marketing "pet pillows." Before trial, the trial court granted Cedar-Al's motion for a preliminary injunction. Cedar-Al, thereafter, posted a $3,500 preliminary injunction bond pursuant to the requirements of CR 65(c). The trial…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Piambino v. BaileyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
- Buddy Systems, Inc., a California Corporation v. Exer-Genie, Inc., a Corporation, and E. E. HolkesvickCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Houghton v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Atomic Oil Co. of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Bardahl Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wagner Development, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- Management Group, LLC v. Coosa Cable Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2011
- Marine Construction & Dredging, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of EngineersCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989