City Line Center, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.

Third Circuit

City Line Center, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.

178 F.2d 267, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2509

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 1949

Docket10036

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 178 F.2d 267 (City Line Center, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City Line Center, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., 178 F.2d 267, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2509 (3d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the Court below, appellants filed a bill of complaint seeking a mandatory injunction. They then moved for a preliminary injunction. That motion was regularly ordered for hearing and came on for hearing on the day assigned. At that hearing, the District Judge determined that no testimony should be offered and denied the motion. The only opinion in the case is the oral opinion of the District-Judge in the course of his denial of the motion. No findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed.

It is obvious that appellants were not allowed the hearing contemplated by Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Sims v. Greene, 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 87. As a result, there were no findings as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and there are no means of telling on what ground the Trial Judge acted. Apparently it was on the theory that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On this question, no opinion is here expressed.

The order denying appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the Court below, appellants filed a bill of complaint seeking a mandatory injunction. They then moved for a preliminary injunction. That motion was regularly ordered for hearing and came on for hearing on the day assigned. At that hearing, the District Judge determined that no testimony should be offered and denied the motion. The only opinion in the case is the oral opinion of the District-Judge in the course of his denial of the motion. No findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed.

It is obvious that appellants were not allowed the hearing contemplated by Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Sims v. Greene, 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 87. As a result, there were no findings as required by Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and there are no means of telling on what ground the Trial Judge acted. Apparently it was on the theory that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On this question, no opinion is here expressed.

The order denying appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 F.2d 267, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-line-center-inc-v-loews-inc-ca3-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack