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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1977

Docket76-2285

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 546 F.2d 1143 (A. R. Suarez v. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada, Afl-Cio, a Labor Organization) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F.2d 1143, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10122, 81 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 13,027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-r-suarez-v-brotherhood-railway-carmen-of-the-united-states-and-canada-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack