Sanders v. De Lucia

Second Circuit

Sanders v. De Lucia

379 F.2d 550

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided June 20, 1967·No. No. 503, Docket 31371·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The order of the district court denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction is affirmed. It is clear that the issuance of the requested injunction would result in greater harm to the defendants than the harm which plaintiff would suffer by reason of failure to issue the injunction. See Schenker v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 304 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1962); Nalco Chemical Co. v. Hall, 347 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1965).

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

PER CURIAM:

The order of the district court denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction is affirmed. It is clear that the issuance of the requested injunction would result in greater harm to the defendants than the harm which plaintiff would suffer by reason of failure to issue the injunction. See Schenker v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 304 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1962); Nalco Chemical Co. v. Hall, 347 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1965).

Sanders v. De Lucia, 379 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

379 F.2d 550 (Sanders v. De Lucia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related