Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wieck v. Sterenbuch

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided January 16, 1976No. 9168Published

1DissentMack, Associate Judge

I would affirm.

The decision to grant a preliminary injunction normally lies in the discretion of the trial judge and our scope of review is accordingly limited. A Quaker Action Group v. Hickel, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 176, 180, 421 F.2d 1111, 1115 (1969). While it is true that the trial court’s findings and conclusions might have been more artfully expressed, I do not find them so clearly erroneous, in the face of this record, as to amount to an abuse of discretion.1 I see no reason for disturbing, on this interlocutory appeal, the findings of two trial judges2 that the appellant, in erecting an…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. A Quaker Action Group v. Walter J. HickelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  2. Industrial Bank of Washington, a Corporation v. Walter N. Tobriner, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and Theodore J. ScheveCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  3. District 50, United Mine Workers Of America v. International Union, United Mine Workers Of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  4. Levy v. ArsenaultDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API