STANDER v. Kelley
This text of 246 A.2d 649 (STANDER v. Kelley) 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.
Opinions
Opinion by
This is an appeal from an Order denying a preliminary injunction. In such a case, the issue before this Court and our scope of review is whether there was a clear abuse of discretion, or palpable legal error, and the merits of the case are not considered or decided: City Line Open Hearth, Inc. v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees’ Union, 413 Pa. 420, 436, 197 A. 2d 614; McDonald v. Noga, 393 Pa. 309, 311, 141 A. 2d 842.
In McDonald v. Noga, 393 Pa., supra, the Court said (page 311) : “On an appeal from a decree granting or refusing a preliminary injunction, the appellant has a very heavy burden to overcome; such a decree will not be interfered with upon appellate review in the absence of a plain abuse of discretion by the [3]*3court below: Aldrich v. Geahry, 360 Pa. 376, 379, 61 A. 2d 843....”
In City Line Open Hearth, Inc. v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees’ Union, 413 Pa., supra, the Court said (page 436) : “On an appeal from the grant or refusal of a preliminary injunction, the test in this Court is well settled. We consider and decide, not the merits of the cuse
We place our decision on the well recognized ground that there was no clear abuse of discretion, or palpable legal error.
Order affirmed, each party to pay own costs.
Italics, ours.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
246 A.2d 649, 432 Pa. 1, 1968 Pa. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stander-v-kelley-pa-1968.