A. R. Suarez v. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada, Afl-Cio, a Labor Organization

Fifth Circuit

A. R. Suarez v. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada, Afl-Cio, a Labor Organization

546 F.2d 1143, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10122, 81 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 13,027

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 9, 1977·No. 76-2285·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We review the district court’s dissolution on defendants’ motion of this agreed preliminary injunction on an abuse of discretion standard. Blackshear Residents Organization v. Romney, 472 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir. 1973); Guillory v. Administrators of Tulane University, 306 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1962). The argument that the district court was irrevocably bound by prior determinations loses its force in face of the district court’s determination that there had been a change in circumstances warranting dissolution of the injunction. This determination does not appear to be clearly erroneous. Further, it does not appear that the court was in error in determining that no irreparable harm was demonstrated. Cf. Morgan v. Fletcher, 518 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1975). We determine only that the court did not err in refusing to continue the preliminary injunction, and express no view as to the ultimate outcome of the case, or on the issues argued to us which do not relate solely to the propriety of the district court’s dissolution of the preliminary injunction. See DiGiorgio v. Causey, 488 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1973).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

We review the district court’s dissolution on defendants’ motion of this agreed preliminary injunction on an abuse of discretion standard. Blackshear Residents Organization v. Romney, 472 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir. 1973); Guillory v. Administrators of Tulane University, 306 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1962). The argument that the district court was irrevocably bound by prior determinations loses its force in face of the district court’s determination that there had been a change in circumstances warranting dissolution of the injunction. This determination does not appear to be clearly erroneous. Further, it does not appear that the court was in error in determining that no irreparable harm was demonstrated. Cf. Morgan v. Fletcher, 518 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1975). We determine only that the court did not err in refusing to continue the preliminary injunction, and express no view as to the ultimate outcome of the case, or on the issues argued to us which do not relate solely to the propriety of the district court’s dissolution of the preliminary injunction. See DiGiorgio v. Causey, 488 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1973).

AFFIRMED.

A. R. Suarez v. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada, Afl-Cio, a Labor Organization, 546 F.2d 1143, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10122, 81 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 13,027 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

546 F.2d 1143 (A. R. Suarez v. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada, Afl-Cio, a Labor Organization) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related