George Toregas v. Helen L. Susser, A. R. Seelye
This text of 290 F.2d 368 (George Toregas v. Helen L. Susser, A. R. Seelye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The District Court acted within its permissible discretion in denying plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction and receiver pendente lite; but in doing so the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law which went beyond the necessities of the preliminary stage of the case and which seem to decide matters more appropriately left for decision after the trial. For this reason, exercising our authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1958), the findings and conclusions are set aside, the subject matter thereof to await full development of the facts and consideration of the law applicable thereto.
While we do not require the case to be advanced for trial we suggest that its nature might well lead the District Court to give further consideration to the motion to advance.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
290 F.2d 368, 110 U.S. App. D.C. 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-toregas-v-helen-l-susser-a-r-seelye-cadc-1961.