Legal Opinion

Sneath v. Lehsten

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 14, 1936PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Perskie, J.

We think that the order requires modification.

First — It is the well established rule that a preliminary injunction should not issue unless there be urgent necessity ; nor if the facts necessary to entitle complainant to relief are controverted under oath; nor if the right is not clear as a matter of law. Citizens Coach Co. v. Camden Horse Railroad Co. (Court of Errors and Appeals. 1878), 29 N. J. Eq. 299; Kellett v. Local No. 274., &c., Canada (Court of Errors and Apeals, 1933); 114. N. J. Eq. 107, 109; A. Hollander & Son, Inc., v. Jos.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Jacobson v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  3. Lochner v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  4. Kilbourn v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  5. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. General Electric Co. v. Gem Vacuum StoresNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
  2. Light v. National Dyeing Printing Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  3. New Chancellor Cinema, Inc. v. Town of IrvingtonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979
  4. State v. JenningsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1941
  5. Vim Elec. v. Retail, Local 830New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API