Salus v. Lawrence, SEC. of Com.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The five Judges who heard this appeal all agree that it must be dismissed. We have held in a number of cases that: “While the granting or refusal of a preliminary injunction is the subject of appeal, yet in such case we refrain from a discussion of the merits of the litigation and merely determine whether, under the facts presented in the court below, there was a reasonable ground for its action”: Holden v. Llewellyn et al., 262 Pa. 400, at pp. 402 and 403. *
The questions involved come from the Election Code of June 3, 1937, P. L. 1333, and we find that the court below had…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. KatzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Borough of Sunbury v. Sunbury & Susquehanna Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Gemmell v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Holden v. LlewellynSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Casinghead Gas Co. v. OsbornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Yale Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Knitgoods Workers Union Local 190Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939