Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 F.2d 1019

Docket No. 3371.

Hurwitz v. Meyer

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided February 23, 1926.)

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1926-02-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1969

1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Meyer v. Hurwitz

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1926-02-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Thompson, Judge.

¶2For opinion below, see 5 F.(2d) 370.

¶3Thomas C. Egan, John M. Patterson, and Wolf, Patterson, Block & Schorr, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

¶4Kennard N. Ware, Charles H. Howson, Howson & Howson, and Robert T. McCracken, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

¶5Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM.

¶7On presentation of affidavits and after hearing the parties, the court below granted a preliminary injunction, the effect of which is to preserve the status in quo and prevent any further alleged injury to the plaintiff’s current business. After due consideration had, we find no ground for convicting the court of error in so doing, as it has, in its opinion, sufficiently vindicated its present action at this stage of the case.

¶8The appeal is therefore dismissed, at the appellant’s cost.

/10/f2d/1019 · .json · Public domain