Legal Opinion

In Re the Application for Reassignment of Albright

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 12, 1971No. 81PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HIGGINS, Justice.

To issue or to refuse an interlocutory injunction is usually a matter of discretion to be exercised by the trial court. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter involved until a trial can be had on the merits. Huskins v. Hospital, 23 8 N.C. 357, 78 S.E. 2d 116. The issuing court does not decide the case, but after weighing the equities, the advantages and disadvantages to the parties, determines, in the exercise of its sound discretion, whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted or refused. Its primary function is to prevent irreparable…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Board of Provincial Elders of the Southern Province of the Moravian Church v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Huskins v. Yancey HospitalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. LOCAL FINANCE COMPANY OF SHELBY v. JordanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Pruitt v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. United Telephone Co. of Carolinas, Inc. v. Universal Plastics, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. Goodman Toyota, Inc. v. City of RaleighCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Jolliff v. WinslowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
  5. Wachovia Bank v. Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd.North Carolina Business Court · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API