Ernest M. Ikirt v. Lee National Corporation and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company of Chattanooga, Tennssee

358 F.2d 726, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6518
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedApril 12, 1966
Docket15605
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 358 F.2d 726 (Ernest M. Ikirt v. Lee National Corporation and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company of Chattanooga, Tennssee) 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
Ernest M. Ikirt v. Lee National Corporation and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company of Chattanooga, Tennssee, 358 F.2d 726, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6518 (3d Cir. 1966).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a class action in which the appellants seek to enjoin the discontinuance and cancellation of certain group insurance policies maintained for their benefit by their employer, the appellee, Lee National Corporation. The action came *727 before the court below on an application for a preliminary injunction. The present appeal is from the denial of this application.

As a prequisite to the issuance of a preliminary injunction the moving party must show that there is a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation and the likelihood of irreparable injury pendente lite if relief is not granted. Charles Simkin & Sons, Inc. v. Massiah, 289 F.2d 26, 29 (3rd Cir.1961); Societe Comptoir De L'Indus, etc. v. Alexander’s Dept. St., 299 F.2d 33, 35, 1 A.L.R.3d 752 (2nd Cir.1962); Goldman v. Henry’s Drive In, Inc., 314 F.2d 162 (7th Cir.1963); Continental Oil Company v. Frontier Refining Company, 338 F.2d 780 (10th Cir.1964). After a full hearing at which the appellants were afforded adequate opportunity to present their evidence, the court below correctly held that the appellants had failed to show either prerequisite.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

Related

Colleen Reilly v. City of Harrisburg
858 F.3d 173 (Third Circuit, 2017)
Chambers v. Klein
419 F. Supp. 569 (D. New Jersey, 1976)
United States v. Caribbean Ventures, Ltd.
387 F. Supp. 1256 (D. New Jersey, 1974)
Raitport v. General Motors Corporation
366 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Helmsley v. Borough of Fort Lee
362 F. Supp. 581 (D. New Jersey, 1973)
Parker v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
457 F.2d 381 (Third Circuit, 1972)
Serritella v. Engelman
339 F. Supp. 738 (D. New Jersey, 1972)
Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, Inc.
337 F. Supp. 834 (D. New Jersey, 1972)
Smith v. Newport National Bank
326 F. Supp. 874 (D. Rhode Island, 1971)
A. L. K. Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
320 F. Supp. 816 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1970)
Cox v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
319 F. Supp. 92 (D. Minnesota, 1970)
Sill v. Pennsylvania State University
315 F. Supp. 125 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1970)
Atlantic Wool Combing Co. v. Fibre Corp.
306 F. Supp. 69 (D. Rhode Island, 1969)
Swartz v. Chrysler Motors Corporation
297 F. Supp. 834 (D. New Jersey, 1969)
American Book Co. v. Blount
295 F. Supp. 1189 (E.D. Kentucky, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 F.2d 726, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-m-ikirt-v-lee-national-corporation-and-provident-life-and-accident-ca3-1966.