Randall v. Clairton City

10 A.2d 779, 337 Pa. 276, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 400
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 2, 1940
DocketAppeal, 222
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 10 A.2d 779 (Randall v. Clairton City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Randall v. Clairton City, 10 A.2d 779, 337 Pa. 276, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 400 (Pa. 1940).

Opinion

Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice Schaffer,

Plaintiffs filed this bill in equity, setting forth that they are persons of color and citizens and residents of the City of Clairton, against the City, its mayor and councilmen, praying that an injunction issue, restraining defendants from interfering with the free use and enjoyment by plaintiffs of the facilities of a swimming pool, constructed, maintained and operated by the City. The pool was built from the proceeds of a municipal bond issue. An admission fee was charged for its use.

The bill was filed June 15, 1939. On June 30, 1939, the chancellor issued a sweeping preliminary injunction restraining defendants and all persons • employed by them from interfering with plaintiffs or any citizens or residents of the City by reason of race or color in the free use and enjoyment of the facilities of the swimming- pool.

It was stated at bar, and not denied, that at the time the bill was filed the swimming pool was closed and empty and that it still remains closed and empty. In view of this, the preliminary injunction was improvidently issued. Until the pool is prepared and ready for its intended use — to swim in — no one could or would use it. The questions raised will be ripe for determina *278 tion when the pool is put in operation and the case proceeds to final hearing.

Decree reversed. Costs to abide final hearing.

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

Related

ECI, LLC. v. Campisi Construction, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2021
Com. v. Auric Investment Holdings, LLC
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2021
Com. v. Maldonado-Vallespil, J.
2019 Pa. Super. 361 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2019)
Commonwealth v. Perez
941 A.2d 778 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
Commonwealth v. Schmotzer
831 A.2d 689 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
Lachappelle v. Interocean Management Corp.
731 A.2d 163 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1999)
Soto v. PNC Bank (In Re Soto)
221 B.R. 343 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1998)
Tulewicz v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
606 A.2d 427 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Commonwealth ex rel. Meth v. Meth
149 A.2d 488 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 A.2d 779, 337 Pa. 276, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-clairton-city-pa-1940.