Murray v. Hill

Decided May 26, 1948

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1948-05-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree which refuses, grants or continues a preliminary injunction, we will look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below, and we will not further consider the merits of the case or pass upon the reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such' grounds existed or that the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable: Commonwealth v. Katz, . 281 Pa. 287, 288 , 126 A. 765 ; Lesher v. Thomas S. Cassner Co., 285 Pa. 43, 44 , 131 A. 657 ; Murray v. Hill, 359 Pa. 540, 541 , 59 A. 2d 877 ; Cohen et al. v. A. M. Byers Company et al., 363 Pa. 618, 619 , 70 A. 2d 837 .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Parker v. Philadelphia

Relies on Commonwealth v. Katz · Borough of Sunbury v. Sunbury & Susquehanna Railway Co. · Holden v. Llewellyn

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1948-05-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2006

23 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1 The decree of the court below is affirmed on the authority of Commonwealth v. Katz, 281 Pa. 287,126 A. 765, where this Court said:

¶2 “Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree which refuses, grants or continues a preliminary injunction, we will look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below, and we will not further consider the merits of the case or pass upon the reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or that the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable (Paxson’s App., 106 Pa. 429, 436-7; Sunbury Boro. v. Sunbury & Susquehanna Ry. Co., 241 Pa. 357; see also Holden v. Llewellyn, 262 Pa. 400); here the discretion of the court was rightly exercised and we find no reversible error.”

¶3 The costs are to be paid by the appellants.