2003 Pa. Super. 458 - Walter v. Stacy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The party seeking an injunction need not prove the merits of the underlying claim, but need only show that substantial legal questions must be resolved to determine the rights of the respective parties. * * * The law with respect to hearings and preliminary injunctions is clear. It provides: A court shall issue a preliminary or special injunction only after written notice and hearing unless it appears to the satisfaction of the court that immediate and irreparable harm will be sustained before notice can be given or a hearing held, in which case the court may issue a preliminary or special injunction without a hearing or without notice. In determining whether a preliminary or special injunction should be granted and whether notice or a hearing should be required, the court may act on the basis of the averments of the pleadings or petition and may consider affidavits of parties or third persons or any other proof which the court may require. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1531(a). A hearing simply is not required under the law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Delevie

2. “1) relief is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm; 2) a greater injury will occur from refusing the injunction than from granting it; 3) the injunction will restore the parties to the status quo; 4) the alleged wrong is manifest and the injunction is reasonably suited to abate it; and 5) the plaintiff’s right to relief is clear.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ambrogi v. Reber