Mccullough v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 290 F.2d 871 (3rd Cir. 1961). · Go Syfert
Search
Mccullough v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 290 F.2d 871 (3rd Cir. 1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Company (ca3, 1982-01-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Company
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fine Fashions, Inc. v. Gross, 290 F.2d 871 , 875 (3d Cir.) (Kalodner, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 896 , 82 S.Ct. 175 , 7 L.Ed.2d 93 (1961); In re Ginsburg, 255 F.2d 358, 364 (3d Cir. 1958) 8 The district court relied on evidence that Hughes regularly inspected the pile; carried liability insurance on the pile; checked the tax levy on the Tiley Tract each year and paid taxes in 1900, 1906, and 1954; and moved quickly to halt Universal's salvage operations by seeking an injunction in state court.
discussed Cited "see" Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co.
3rd Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fine Fashions, Inc. v. Gross, 290 F.2d 871 , 875 (3d Cir.) (Kalodner, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 896 , 82 S.Ct. 175 , 7 L.Ed.2d 93 (1961); In re Ginsburg, 255 F.2d 358, 364 (3d Cir. 1958). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
H. A. McCullough and H. F. McCullough a Partnership Doing Business as McCullough Dairy Queen and Burton F. Myers, Robert J. Rydeen, M. E. Montgomery and Lorraine Dale, of the Estate of Howard S. Dale, Deceased, Individuals
v.
Dairy Queen, Inc.
13522.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
May 16, 1961.
290 F.2d 871
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

290 F.2d 871

H. A. McCULLOUGH and H. F. McCullough, a partnership doing business as McCullough's Dairy Queen; and Burton F. Myers, Robert J. Rydeen, M. E. Montgomery and Lorraine Dale, Executrix of the Estate of Howard S. Dale, deceased, individuals
v.
DAIRY QUEEN, INC., Appellant.

No. 13522.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 5, 1961.

Decided May 16, 1961.

Michael H. Egnal, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Mark D. Alspach, Philadelphia, Pa. (Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., Ooms, Welsh & Bradway, Owen J. Ooms and Malcolm S. Bradway, Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellees.

Before GOODRICH, STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~871]1

The appellant complains of a preliminary injunction issued against it by the judge of the district court. The basis of his complaint is that the judge, in issuing the injunction, found facts against him which he says are not in accord with the reality of the case. There are two answers to the appellant's contention. The first is that he had an opportunity to present testimony had he desired to do so in the district court hearing. The second, and completely conclusive, is the fact that what the trial court issued was a preliminary injunction. Upon the trial of the case on the merits each party will have opportunity to present such testimony as that party deems fit to support his case. The issue of the issuance of a preliminary injunction was a matter of discretion for the trial judge. That discretion was not abused in this instance.

[*~878]2

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.