French v. Vandkjaer

Massachusetts Appeals Court

French v. Vandkjaer

439 N.E.2d 317, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 980, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1432

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedAugust 24, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 439 N.E.2d 317 (French v. Vandkjaer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

French v. Vandkjaer, 439 N.E.2d 317, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 980, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1432 (Mass. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

We take a fresh look at the affidavits, but, “in assessing whether a judge erred in granting or denying a request for preliminary injunctive relief, we must look to the same factors properly considered by the judge in the first instance.” Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 615-616 (1980). Where, as here, an “order was predicated solely on documentary evidence we may draw our own conclusions from the record.” Id. at 616. See also Edwin B. Sage Co. v. Foley, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 20, 26 (1981).

We are unable to conclude on this record that the judge abused his discretion or committed an error of law. The judge could infer reasonably and fairly from the affidavits and documentary materials before him that, in order to maintain the status quo and avoid irreparable harm to the plaintiff, injunctive relief was necessary and appropriate in the instant circumstances.

Order granting preliminary injunction affirmed.

Jeffrey Petrucelly (Marc Lauritsen with him) for the defendants. Anne M. Thomas for the plaintiff.

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

We take a fresh look at the affidavits, but, “in assessing whether a judge erred in granting or denying a request for preliminary injunctive relief, we must look to the same factors properly considered by the judge in the first instance.” Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 615-616 (1980). Where, as here, an “order was predicated solely on documentary evidence we may draw our own conclusions from the record.” Id. at 616. See also Edwin B. Sage Co. v. Foley, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 20, 26 (1981).

We are unable to conclude on this record that the judge abused his discretion or committed an error of law. The judge could infer reasonably and fairly from the affidavits and documentary materials before him that, in order to maintain the status quo and avoid irreparable harm to the plaintiff, injunctive relief was necessary and appropriate in the instant circumstances.

Order granting preliminary injunction affirmed.

Jeffrey Petrucelly (Marc Lauritsen with him) for the defendants. Anne M. Thomas for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 N.E.2d 317, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 980, 1982 Mass. App. LEXIS 1432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-vandkjaer-massappct-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack