United States v. Walter Gerbron, Inc.

Third Circuit

United States v. Walter Gerbron, Inc.

194 F.2d 708, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2838

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1952

Docket10617

StatusPublished

This text of 194 F.2d 708 (United States v. Walter Gerbron, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Walter Gerbron, Inc., 194 F.2d 708, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2838 (3d Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the district court entering a *709 final injunction restraining the defendant from violating certain provisions of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 1 et seq. The defendant concedes that it failed to comply with the act but asserts that after the entry of the preliminary injunction but before final hearing, it had brought itself into compliance and that a final injunction should, therefore, not have been entered against it. It is settled, however, that the question whether an injunction shall be issued under such circumstances is to be determined by the district court in the exercise of its discretion. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 1944, 321 U.S. 321, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754. We find no basis in the record of this case for holding that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the final injunction here appealed from.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the district court entering a *709 final injunction restraining the defendant from violating certain provisions of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 1 et seq. The defendant concedes that it failed to comply with the act but asserts that after the entry of the preliminary injunction but before final hearing, it had brought itself into compliance and that a final injunction should, therefore, not have been entered against it. It is settled, however, that the question whether an injunction shall be issued under such circumstances is to be determined by the district court in the exercise of its discretion. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 1944, 321 U.S. 321, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754. We find no basis in the record of this case for holding that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the final injunction here appealed from.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F.2d 708, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-walter-gerbron-inc-ca3-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack