Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 123 A.2d 626 (Pa. 1956). · Go Syfert
Search
Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 123 A.2d 626 (Pa. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1959↓ Fading · …any apparently reasonable grounds ✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1963 · …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 … ✓
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1967↓ Fading · …palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable ✓
169 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Reed v. Harrisburg City Council (pacommwct, 2007-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reed v. Harrisburg City Council
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2007 · confidence medium
In Albee Homes, Inc. v. Caddie Homes, Inc., 417 Pa. 177, 181 , 207 A.2d 768, 770-771 (1965), the Supreme Court expounded as follows: The scope of our review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is “to examine the record only to determine ‘if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below....’ Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Savage, Sharkey, Reiser & Szulborski Eye Care Consultants, P.C. v. Tanner
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
The Court noted that in reviewing an appeal from a grant of a preliminary injunction, its scope of review is narrow, and is limited to a review of the record to determine whether “ ‘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.’ ” Id. at 181 (quoting Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956) (e…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Philadelphia v. District Council 33 (2×)
Pa. · 1991 · confidence medium
Another current explication contains an even broader gauge when examining the "apparently reasonable grounds" aspect of the scope of review, introduces the term "essential prerequisites," and has been set forth as follows: *371 The scope of our review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is "to examine the record only to determine `if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below. . . .' Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-55 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Philadelphia v. District Council 33
Pa. · 1990 · confidence medium
Another current explication contains an even broader gauge when examining the “apparently reasonable grounds” aspect of the scope of review, introduces the term “essential prerequisites,” and has been set forth as follows: The scope of our review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is “to examine the record only to determine ‘if there were any *485 apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below . . . .’ Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-55 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Township of Upper St. Clair v. N.R. Porter & Associates
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1989 · confidence medium
Our scope of review where the chancellor denies a preliminary injunction is very narrow. “[W]e 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 upon are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable____” Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jersey Shore Area School District v. Jersey Shore Education Ass'n (2×)
Pa. · 1988 · confidence medium
This Court has stated that it will not reverse a grant of injunctive relief “unless ... the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable.” Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) West Bradford Township v. Strasburg Associates
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1983 · confidence medium
(Citations omitted.) Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Penjerdel Refrigeration Corp. v. R.A.C.S., Inc. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1982 · confidence medium
In reviewing a preliminary injunction, an appellate court will “look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below . . . . ” Herman v. Dixon, 393 Pa. 33, 36 , 141 A.2d 576, 577 (1958), quoting from Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v. Johnson
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1982 · confidence medium
(Appellants’ Brief, page 32.) 13 They argue that our scope of review that “we will look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below,” Robinson Electronics Supervisory v. Johnson, 397 Pa. 268, 274 , 154 A.2d 494, 496 (1959), quoting from Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956), must be made broader in the instant case because Liquid Air was not given full opportunity to defend itself at the in camera proceedings held by the trial court, when it took evidence to determine whether and what trade secrets exis…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Singzon v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare (2×)
Pa. · 1981 · confidence medium
See Hospital Ass'n of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Public Welfare, 495 Pa. 225 , 433 A.2d 450 (1981); Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956); 5 Goodrich-Amram 2d §§ 1531(e):2 & 1531(e):3 (1977); 9 Std.Pa.Practice Ch. 40 (Hearing and Determination of Appeal), § 235 at p. 566 (rev.ed. 1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hospital Ass'n v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare
Pa. · 1981 · confidence medium
Appellate review is limited to whether the action of the court had “any apparently reasonable grounds.” Bell v. Thornburgh, supra. Accord, e. g., South Fayette Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 477 Pa. 574, 579 , 385 A.2d 344, 347 (1978); McMullan v. Wohlgemuth, 444 Pa. 563, 570 , 281 A.2d 836, 840 (1971); Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956); 5 Goodrich-Amram 2d, supra, at §§ 1531(e):2 & 1531(e):3; 9 Std.Pa.Practice Ch. 40 (Hearing and Determination of Appeal), § 235 at p. 566 (rev. ed. 1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Valley Forge Historical Society v. Washington Memorial Chapel
Pa. · 1981 · confidence medium
The standard of review on appeal from the grant of preliminary injunction has been repeatedly set forth by this Court: ‘The scope of review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is to examine the record only to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of te court below . . . ’ Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) VALLEY FORGE, ETC. v. Wash. Mem. Chapel
Pa. · 1981 · confidence medium
The Chapel's final argument is that the Society failed to establish the existence of the essential prerequisites to the issuance and maintenance of a preliminary injunction. *500 The standard of review on appeal from the grant of preliminary injunction has been repeatedly set forth by this Court: `The scope of review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is to examine the record only to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of te court below. . .' Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shanaman v. YELLOW CAB CO. OF PHILA. (2×)
Pa. · 1980 · confidence medium
The standard of review is as follows: `The scope of review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is to examine the record only to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below. . .' Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Coward
Pa. · 1980 · confidence medium
Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
examined Cited as authority (rule) New Castle Orthopedic Associates v. Burns (4×)
Pa. · 1978 · confidence medium
Bryant Co., Inc. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc., 471 Pa. 1 , 369 A.2d 1164 (1977), where we said: "The scope of our review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is to examine the record only to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court *464 below . . . ." Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc.
Pa. · 1977 · confidence medium
There we observed: “The scope of our review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is to examine the record only to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below . . ..” Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. National Federation of the Blind
Pa. · 1977 · confidence medium
The limits of our review of the denial of a preliminary injunction were stated in Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956): “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 *541 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…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sidco Paper Company v. Aaron (2×)
Pa. · 1976 · confidence medium
The restricted scope of our review in cases such as this is well established: “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.” Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956). 1 As the majority concludes, the record in this case does disclose “reasonable grounds” fo…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armstrong School District v. Armstrong Education Ass'n
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1972 · confidence medium
In reviewing the lower court’s action in issuing an injunction, our scope of review, as with other types of equity matters, is limited, “ ‘(W)e 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: . . .’ Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-344 , 123 A. 2d 626, 627 (1956); United Natural Gas C…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Midland Borough v. Midland Police Department
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1972 · confidence medium
Schwab v. Pottstown Borough, 407 Pa. 531, 533 , 180 A. 2d 921, 922 (1962).” As was stated in Albee Homes, Inc. v. Caddie Homes, Inc., 417 Pa. 177 , 207 A. 2d 768 (1965): “The scope of our review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is ‘to examine the record only to determine “if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below. . . .” Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A. 2d 626, 627 (1956). . .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Shapp
Pa. · 1971 · confidence medium
Rock., Inc., 429 Pa. 565 , 240 A. 2d 832 , the Court said (page 569) : “We start with the proposition, now firmly established, 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: . . .’ Lindenfelser v. Lindenfe…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Community Sports, Inc. v. Denver Ringsby Rockets, Inc.
Pa. · 1968 · confidence medium
We start with the proposition, now firmly established, 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 :...” Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A. 2d 626, 627 (1956); United Natural Gas …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Albee Homes, Inc. v. Caddie Homes, Inc.
Pa. · 1965 · confidence medium
The scope of our review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is “to examine the record only to determine ‘if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below . . . .’ Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A. 2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ALABAMA B. & C. CORP. v. Pa. Ind. Chem. Corp.
Pa. · 1963 · confidence medium
In reviewing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction our familiar rule is to examine the record only to determine "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." Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A. 2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alabama Binder & Chemical Corp. v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp.
Pa. · 1963 · confidence medium
In reviewing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction our familiar rule is to examine the record only to determine “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.” Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44 , 123 A. 2d 626, 627 (1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Evans
Pa. · 1958 · confidence medium
On an appeal from a decree issuing a preliminary injunction, we look only to see “if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below” and “we will not further consider tbe merits of tbe case or pass upon tbe reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or that tbe rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable:” Williams v. Bridy, 391 Pa. 1 , 136 A. 2d 832 ; Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343, 344 , 123 A. 2d 626 ; Riverside Borough School District v. International Brotherhood of Electr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PA. TURNPIKE COMMISSION v. Evans
Pa. · 1958 · confidence medium
On an appeal from a decree issuing a preliminary injunction, we 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 *117 or clearly inapplicable:" Williams v. Bridy, 391 Pa. 1 , 136 A. 2d 832 ; Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343, 344 , 123 A. 2d 626 ; Riverside Borough School District v. International Brotherhood of Electrica…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Bridy
Pa. · 1957 · confidence medium
The scope of our review in this type of proceeding is clear. 1 In Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343, 344 , 123 A. 2d 626 , we stated: “Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree which refuses, *3 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 ina…
discussed Cited "see" Rosenberg v. United States Lumber Co. (2×)
Pa. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 344 , 123 A. 2d 626 , and cases there cited.
discussed Cited "see" Riverside Borough School District v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 607 (2×)
Pa. · 1957 · signal: see · confidence high
As there appears to be reasonable grounds for the action of the court below and as the rules of law relied upon by the court are neither palpably wrong nor clearly inapplicable, the decree of the court below must be affirmed: see Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342 , 123 A. 2d 626 ; New Kensington v. Municipal Authority of the City of New Kensington, 383 Pa. 182 , 118 A. 2d 149 ; and Cohen v. A. M.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lindenfelser, Appellant,
v.
Lindenfelser
Appeal, 199.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jun 25, 1956.
123 A.2d 626
1956 Pa. LEXIS 478
David Freeman, with him Harry J. Liederbaeh, for appellant., George P. Williams, Jr.} with him William M. Power and Orr, Williams & Baxter, for appellee.
Stern, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold.
Cited by 83 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The essential facts in this case are set forth in the opinion of this Court on a former appeal (Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 383 Pa. 424, 119 A. 2d 87). Briefly stated they are that the parties are husband and wife and are separated. The plaintiff-husband filed a complaint in equity against the defendant alleging that the plaintiff and defendant owned real property as tenants[*343] by the entireties; that since their separation the wife occupied one property, excluding the plaintiff therefrom; that she was collecting the rentals from the remaining properties and applying them to her own use exclusively; and that the defendant also retained for her sole use, personal property owned by both parties, excluding plaintiff therefrom. We held, inter alia, that the Married Women’s Property Act does not bar an action in equity by one spouse against the other to protect as separate property his or her interest in property held by them as tenants by the entireties and from the possession of which the complaining spouse is wrongfully excluded. The record was remanded with instructions to the court below “. . . to hold a hearing on plaintiff’s application for preliminary injunction, including the appointment of a receiver, and to determine all questions in accordance with this opinion. . . .”: Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, supra, at p. 428.

Pursuant to this order, the court below held a hearing on the application for preliminary relief. At the conclusion of the hearing, both sides having presented evidence, the chancellor denied the requests for a preliminary injunction and the appointment of a receiver, without prepidiee to the ultimate merits, and directed counsel to file requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law so that a final adjudication might be had. No requests for findings were filed, plaintiff electing to appeal immediately from the intermediate ruling denying his application for preliminary relief under the Act of June 12, 1879, P. L. 177, §1, 12 PS §1102.

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[*344] 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.

The present record discloses apparently reasonable grounds for refusing a preliminary injunction, and in accordance with the above stated ruling, we will not enter on a consideration of the merits of the case at this time.

The order of the court below is affirmed, costs to await final determination of the proceedings.