Ford Motor Co. v. M. L. Cottingham, Inc., a Corp., & Ernest B. Graham, 228 F.2d 911 (6th Cir. 1955). · Go Syfert
Ford Motor Co. v. M. L. Cottingham, Inc., a Corp., & Ernest B. Graham, 228 F.2d 911 (6th Cir. 1955). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Gas Natural Inc. v. Osborne (ca6, 2015-08-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gas Natural Inc. v. Osborne
6th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Cottingham, Inc., 228 F.2d 911, 911 (6th Cir.1955) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Douglas Martin
6th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Cottingham, Inc., 228 F.2d 911, 911 (6th Cir. 1955) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
M. L. COTTINGHAM, Inc., a Corporation, and Ernest B. Graham, Appellees
12653.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Dec 2, 1955.
228 F.2d 911
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Columbus, Ohio, for appellant., Robert L. Barton, Columbus, Ohio, for appellees.
Allen, McALLISTER, Miller, Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And it appearing that the District Judge entered the order herein appealed from granting to appellees the preliminary injunction prayed for, without affording appellant an opportunity to present its evidence in opposition to the allegations of appellees’ complaint and without making findings of fact as required by Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and without setting forth in said order the reasons for its issuance as required by Rule 65(d), Rules of Civil Procedure;

It Is Ordered that said order and preliminary injunction be set aside and vacated, and the action remanded to the District Court for a hearing with opportunity afforded to both appellant and appellees to present evidence on the factual issues involved, and for further proceedings in accordance with the provisions of said Rules. Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310, 316-317, 60 S.Ct. 517, 84 L.Ed. 774; Public Service Commission v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 289 U.S. 67, 53 S.Ct. 514, 77 L.Ed. 1036.