Utah § 34-19-4 Injunctive relief -- Reasons for prohibiting.

Utah Statutes

§ 34-19-4 — Injunctive relief -- Reasons for prohibiting.

Utah § 34-19-4

Title 34Labor in General

Ch. 34-19Labor Disputes

This text of Utah § 34-19-4 (Injunctive relief -- Reasons for prohibiting.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Utah Code Ann. § 34-19-4 (2026).

Text

Equity procedure that permits a complaining party to obtain sweeping injunctive relief that is not preceded by or conditioned upon notice to and hearing of the responding party or parties, or that issues after hearing based upon written affidavits alone and not wholly or in part upon examination, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses in open court, is peculiarly subject to abuse in labor litigation for the reasons that:

(1)The status quo cannot be maintained but is necessarily altered by the injunction;

(2)Determination of issues of veracity and/or probability of fact from affidavits of the opposing parties that are contradictory and, under the circumstances, untrustworthy rather than from oral examination in open court is subject to grave error;

(3)Error in issuing the injun

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

Equity procedure that permits a complaining party to obtain sweeping injunctive relief that is not preceded by or conditioned upon notice to and hearing of the responding party or parties, or that issues after hearing based upon written affidavits alone and not wholly or in part upon examination, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses in open court, is peculiarly subject to abuse in labor litigation for the reasons that:
(1) The status quo cannot be maintained but is necessarily altered by the injunction;
(2) Determination of issues of veracity and/or probability of fact from affidavits of the opposing parties that are contradictory and, under the circumstances, untrustworthy rather than from oral examination in open court is subject to grave error;
(3) Error in issuing the injunctive relief is usually irreparable to the opposing party; and
(4) Delay incident to the normal course of appellate practice frequently makes ultimate correction of error in law or in fact unavailing in the particular case.