Legal Opinion
Murray Hill Restaurant, Inc. v. Thirteen Twenty One Locust, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided July 20, 1938No. 6797PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARIS, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying without prejudice its motion for a preliminary injunction. Upon such an appeal the appellant carries a heavy burden. As Judge Gray said, speaking for this court in New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air Cell Covering Co., 3 Cir., 102 F. 890, 891:
“The granting of a preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it; and the decision of a court of first instance,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Rice & Adams Corp. v. LathropSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- American Mercury, Inc. v. KielyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Lare v. HarperCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1898
- Barker Painting Co. v. BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, ETC.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1926
- New York Asbestos Mfg. Co. v. Ambler Asbestos Air-Cell Covering Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1900
3Cited by41 opinions
- Sims v. GreeneCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. GittoneCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
- Tefal, S.A. And Royal Chambord, Inc. v. Products International Company, a Partnership Also Known as Picam Products and as Prescott Adams & NolanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Industrial Electronics Corp. v. ClineCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
- Henis v. Compania Agricola De GuatemalaDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1953
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.