Bowles v. David Bernstein, Inc.

S.D. New York

Bowles v. David Bernstein, Inc.

66 F. Supp. 361

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 12, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 F. Supp. 361 (Bowles v. David Bernstein, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowles v. David Bernstein, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

RIFKIND, District Judge,

Application by the plaintiff for an.injunction pendente lite restraining alleged violations of M.P.R. 574, relating to cattle and calves! Defendant has presented an affidavit showing that 18% of the cattle slaughtered during the accounting period were purchased prior to the effective date of the -Regulation. Plaintiff has not controverted this assertion. Consequently, it is by no means clear or even probable that a violation of the Regulation has occurred. Unher the circumstances, plaintiff has not shown a right to interlocutory relief. It may be that plaintiff can present facts which would establish the violation;, and, if for any reason this case cannot be brought promptly to trial, the plaintiff, in view of the large public interest involved, should have an opportunity to renew his application.

The motion is denied, therefore, without prejudice to renewal upon appropriate affidavits.

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

RIFKIND, District Judge,

Application by the plaintiff for an.injunction pendente lite restraining alleged violations of M.P.R. 574, relating to cattle and calves! Defendant has presented an affidavit showing that 18% of the cattle slaughtered during the accounting period were purchased prior to the effective date of the -Regulation. Plaintiff has not controverted this assertion. Consequently, it is by no means clear or even probable that a violation of the Regulation has occurred. Unher the circumstances, plaintiff has not shown a right to interlocutory relief. It may be that plaintiff can present facts which would establish the violation;, and, if for any reason this case cannot be brought promptly to trial, the plaintiff, in view of the large public interest involved, should have an opportunity to renew his application.

The motion is denied, therefore, without prejudice to renewal upon appropriate affidavits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 F. Supp. 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-david-bernstein-inc-nysd-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack