Pace Co. v. Resor

Sixth Circuit

Pace Co. v. Resor

453 F.2d 890

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1971

DocketNos. 71-1974, 71-1975

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 453 F.2d 890 (Pace Co. v. Resor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pace Co. v. Resor, 453 F.2d 890 (6th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from orders of the District Court granting and refusing to vacate or stay a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from awarding a contract to the intervenor-defendant-appellant pursuant to an invitation for bids to furnish a quantity of 81MM shells for delivery to the United States Army in Vietnam.

We need not and do not reach the issue of whether the District Court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, at the request of plaintiff-appellee gs a disappointed bidder. See Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108 (1940); Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 424 F.2d 859 (1970); M. Steinthal & Co. v. Seamans, 455 F.2d 1289 (D.C.Cir. 1971). Neither do we reach the issue as to whether the granting of the injunction was a proper exercise of the discretion of the trial court. We do not reach these issues because we conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in not vacating the injunction upon the representation by the Secretary of the Army that the National welfare will be materially affected by the injunction. On the basis of the affidavits on file we find the National interest to be of such overriding importance as to render the failure to vacate the injunction an abuse of discretion.

We have not been cited any authority in which any Court of the United States has enjoined the acquisition of munitions after a responsible officer has certified such munitions as necessary for support of troops engaged in military operations.

The cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to vacate the injunction.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from orders of the District Court granting and refusing to vacate or stay a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from awarding a contract to the intervenor-defendant-appellant pursuant to an invitation for bids to furnish a quantity of 81MM shells for delivery to the United States Army in Vietnam.

We need not and do not reach the issue of whether the District Court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, at the request of plaintiff-appellee gs a disappointed bidder. See Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108 (1940); Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 424 F.2d 859 (1970); M. Steinthal & Co. v. Seamans, 455 F.2d 1289 (D.C.Cir. 1971). Neither do we reach the issue as to whether the granting of the injunction was a proper exercise of the discretion of the trial court. We do not reach these issues because we conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in not vacating the injunction upon the representation by the Secretary of the Army that the National welfare will be materially affected by the injunction. On the basis of the affidavits on file we find the National interest to be of such overriding importance as to render the failure to vacate the injunction an abuse of discretion.

We have not been cited any authority in which any Court of the United States has enjoined the acquisition of munitions after a responsible officer has certified such munitions as necessary for support of troops engaged in military operations.

The cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to vacate the injunction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 F.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pace-co-v-resor-ca6-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack