Legal Opinion

Superscope, Inc. v. Kincaid

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 6, 1982No. 8125SC619PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CLARK, Judge.

The sole issue presented to us for review is whether the court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the foreclosure proceedings pending resolution of the action against defendant.

The burden is on plaintiffs to establish their right to a preliminary injunction. In order to justify issuance of a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits of their case and either that they are likely to sustain irreparable loss unless the injunction is issued or that issuance is necessary for the protection of plaintiffs…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ridge Community Investors, Inc. v. BerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Pruitt v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. Wentz v. Piedmont Land Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Sanders v. Rocky Mount Insurance & Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  5. Smith v. Bank of PinehurstSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wallace Butts Insurance Agency, Inc. v. RungeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  2. Adams v. Beard Development Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API