New Kensington v. Municipal Authority

118 A.2d 149, 383 Pa. 182, 1955 Pa. LEXIS 336
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 14, 1955·No. Appeal, 4·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the grant of . a preliminary injunction against the defendant-appellant. The injunction was issued after the court had taken testimony of both parties. This is an unedifying example of each of two bodies claiming to represent the people in the same geographical subdivision. Under the law our review is very much limited, being confined to whether, under the facts before the court below, there were *184 reasonable grounds for its action: Roth v. Columbia Distributing Company, 371 Pa. 297, 305, 89 A. 2d 825.

The court’s action fully satisfies the foregoing rule, and we accordingly affirm the decree of the court below on the opinion of Judge Bauer, reported at 3 D. & C. 2d 784; costs to abide the event.

Due to the importance of the cause, it is further ordered that the court below hold final hearing and render a decision thereon within sixty days from the date of filing of this opinion.

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

New Kensington v. Municipal Authority, 118 A.2d 149, 383 Pa. 182, 1955 Pa. LEXIS 336 (Pa. 1955).

118 A.2d 149 (New Kensington v. Municipal Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bd. of Educ. of Township of E. Brunswick v. Tp. Council, E. Brunswick
223 A.2d 481 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1966)
Commonwealth v. Grochowiak
136 A.2d 145 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1957)
Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.
126 A.2d 132 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)