The Telex Corporation v. International Business MacHines Corporation

Eighth Circuit

The Telex Corporation v. International Business MacHines Corporation

464 F.2d 1025, 1972 Trade Cas. (CCH) 74,184, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8180

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 28, 1972

Docket72-1447

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 464 F.2d 1025 (The Telex Corporation v. International Business MacHines Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Telex Corporation v. International Business MacHines Corporation, 464 F.2d 1025, 1972 Trade Cas. (CCH) 74,184, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8180 (8th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter was heard on an expedited appeal from the district court’s entry of a “temporary restraining order” dated July 21, 1972. The order entered by the district court enjoins I.B.M. inter alia from announcing certain new products on or about August 2, 1972, and until such time that Telex Corporation’s motion for preliminary injunction is heard and submitted to the district court on or before September 1, 1972. In view of the fact that the lower court’s order exceeds the ten day limitation as set forth in Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court finds that the order so entered is tantamount to an issuance of a preliminary injunction and that the order entered on July 21, 1972, is an appealable order. See Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Engineer’s International Association, 306 F.2d 840 (2 Cir. 1962); Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. Randolph, 182 F.2d 996 (8 Cir. 1950).

The district court on entering its order of July 21, 1972, states that it does not make any finding at this time on the “ultimate probable success on the merits nor of permanent irreparable injury to Telex.” The order fails to require the giving of security by the applicant as required by Rule 65(c) and as set forth fails to make any specific finding of injury or irreparable harm as required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Upon review of the entire matter this court determines that the preliminary injunction entered by the court on July 21, 1972, should be, and hereby is, ordered dissolved. This opinion and judgment dissolving the July 21, 1972, order of the district court is without prejudice *1026 and is not intended to reflect on any findings the district court might make and any relief deemed appropriate from such findings which may arise from the September 1, 1972, hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

This matter was heard on an expedited appeal from the district court’s entry of a “temporary restraining order” dated July 21, 1972. The order entered by the district court enjoins I.B.M. inter alia from announcing certain new products on or about August 2, 1972, and until such time that Telex Corporation’s motion for preliminary injunction is heard and submitted to the district court on or before September 1, 1972. In view of the fact that the lower court’s order exceeds the ten day limitation as set forth in Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court finds that the order so entered is tantamount to an issuance of a preliminary injunction and that the order entered on July 21, 1972, is an appealable order. See Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Flight Engineer’s International Association, 306 F.2d 840 (2 Cir. 1962); Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. v. Randolph, 182 F.2d 996 (8 Cir. 1950).

The district court on entering its order of July 21, 1972, states that it does not make any finding at this time on the “ultimate probable success on the merits nor of permanent irreparable injury to Telex.” The order fails to require the giving of security by the applicant as required by Rule 65(c) and as set forth fails to make any specific finding of injury or irreparable harm as required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Upon review of the entire matter this court determines that the preliminary injunction entered by the court on July 21, 1972, should be, and hereby is, ordered dissolved. This opinion and judgment dissolving the July 21, 1972, order of the district court is without prejudice *1026 and is not intended to reflect on any findings the district court might make and any relief deemed appropriate from such findings which may arise from the September 1, 1972, hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

It is so ordered.

Maryland Department of Human Resources Ruth W. Massinga, Secretary Linda Walter, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. United States Department of Agriculture John R. Block, Secretary, Maryland Department of Human Resources Ruth W. Massinga, Secretary Melinda Y. Harps, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. United States Department of Agriculture John R. Block, Secretary

976 F.2d 1462 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)

Maryland Department of Human Resources v. United States Department of Agriculture

976 F.2d 1462 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)

Andrew B. Phillips v. Chas. Schreiner Bank and Schreiner Bancshares

894 F.2d 127 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)

Jerome Crowley v. Local No. 82

679 F.2d 978 (First Circuit, 1982)

Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, & Packers

679 F.2d 978 (First Circuit, 1982)

Lawrence Roth v. Bank of the Commonwealth

583 F.2d 527 (Sixth Circuit, 1978)

System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Development Corporation

555 F.2d 1131 (Third Circuit, 1977)

System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Development Corp.

555 F.2d 1131 (Third Circuit, 1977)

Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807 v. Bohack Corp.

541 F.2d 312 (Second Circuit, 1976)

Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. The Bohack Corporation, Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Honorable Jacob Mishler, Chief Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

541 F.2d 312 (Second Circuit, 1976)

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,531 Waste Management, Inc. v. Ronald D. Deffenbaugh

534 F.2d 126 (Eighth Circuit, 1976)

George Squillacote, Regional Director of the Thirtieth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Workers, Affiliated With Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio, George Squillacote, Regional Director of the Thirtieth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Workers, Affiliated With Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio

534 F.2d 735 (Seventh Circuit, 1976)

Squillacote v. Local 248, Meat & Allied Food Workers

534 F.2d 735 (Seventh Circuit, 1976)

L'Enfant Plaza Properties, Inc. v. Fitness Systems, Inc.

354 A.2d 233 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1976)

Lightsey v. Kensington Mortgage and Finance Corp.

315 So. 2d 431 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1975)

Theodore Wooten v. The First National Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota, Vernon Cryer v. The First National Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota

490 F.2d 1275 (First Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 F.2d 1025, 1972 Trade Cas. (CCH) 74,184, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-telex-corporation-v-international-business-machines-corporation-ca8-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack