GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER,

v.

THE UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• A. O. Smith Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 530 F.2d 515 (3d Cir. 1976)
  …wing considerations: 1. The law has entrusted the power to grant or dissolve an injunction to the discretion of the trial court in the first instance, and not to the appellate court. Stokes v. Williams, 226 F. 148, 156 (3d Cir. 1915), cert. denied, 241 U.S. 681, 36 S.Ct. 728, 60 L.Ed. 1234 (1916). 2. Unless the trial court abuses that discretion, commits an obvious error in applying the law, or makes a serious mistake in considering the proof, the appellate court must take the judgment of the trial court…
• Nat'l Land & Inv. Co. v. Arlen Specter, 428 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1970)
  …. It is for us to determine only whether there has been an abuse of that discretion, whether there was an error of law or whether a clear mistake was made in the consideration of the proof. Stokes v. Williams, 226 F. 148 (3 Cir. 1915), cert. denied, 241 U.S. 681, 36 S.Ct. 728, 60 L.Ed. 1234 (1916). Whether appellants demonstrated the irreparable harm or reasonable probability of success on final hearing necessary to the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a question of law that does not have “an existen…
• Klitzman v. Krut, 744 F.2d 955 (3d Cir. 1984)
  …onsidering the proof, the appellate court must take the judgment of the trial court as presumptively correct. National Land & Investment Co. v. Specter, 428 F. 2d 91, 95 (3d Cir.1970); Stokes v. Williams, 226 F. 148, 156 (3d Cir.1915), cert. denied, 241 U.S. 681, 36 S.Ct. 728, 60 L.Ed. 1234 (1916). This limited review is appropriate because a court nearly always bases the grant or denial of an injunction on an abbreviated set of facts, requiring a delicate balancing of the probabilities of ultimate succes…