Schultz and Assoc. v. Ingram
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
Defendant assigns as error the clarifying order which sets forth the reasons for the preliminary injunction. Rule 65(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a preliminary injunction order “shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; [and] shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts enjoined.” The clarifying order tracks the original order with the exception of the following language:
“for the reason that the court is of the opinion that there is probable cause…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Collins v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- United States v. Mary StuartCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- R. R. v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Welcome Wagon International, Inc. v. PenderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Board of Provincial Elders of the Southern Province of the Moravian Church v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Young v. VegaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1994
- Electrical South, Inc. v. LewisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
- Barbe v. AA Harmon & Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1998
- Lohrmann v. Iredell Memorial Hospital Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.