Scott Paper Co. & Int'l Paper Co. v. Gulf Coast Pulpwood Ass'n, Inc., Etc., 491 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Scott Paper Co. & Int'l Paper Co. v. Gulf Coast Pulpwood Ass'n, Inc., Etc., 491 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ethredge v. Hail (ca11, 1993-08-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ethredge v. Hail
11th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Johns County, 989 F.2d 1136, 1136-37 (11th Cir.1993) (quoting Scott Paper Co. v. Gulf Coast Pulpwood Ass’n, 491 F.2d 119, 119 (5th Cir.1974) 5 ) (other citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ethredge v. Hail
11th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Johns County, 989 F.2d 1136, 1136-37 (11th Cir.1993) (quoting Scott Paper Co. v. Gulf Coast Pulpwood Ass'n, 491 F.2d 119, 119 (5th Cir.1974) 5 ) (other citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cafe 207, Inc., a Florida Corporation v. St. Johns County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida
11th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Inc., 491 F.2d 119, 119 (5th Cir.1974). 2 We will disturb the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction only if the court abused its discretion.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SCOTT PAPER COMPANY and International Paper Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GULF COAST PULPWOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., Et Al., Etc., Defendants-Appellees
73-3262.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 18, 1974.
491 F.2d 119
1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9619
Frank McRight, Kirk C. Shaw, Mobile, Ala., for Scott Paper., R. F. Adams, Brock B. Gordon, Mobile, Ala., for Int’l Paper., John J. Coleman, Jr., Samuel H. Franklin, Birmingham, Ala., for MacMillan Bloedel Inc., amicus curiae., Harry H. Riddick, Joseph M. Allen, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for J. B. Jones Timber Co., and others, amicus curiae., James U, Blacksher, Mobile, Ala., John G. Ratcliff, Hattiesburg, Miss., William H. Allison, Jr., Louisville, Ky., for defendants-appellees.
Coleman, Ainsworth, Gee.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The parties have briefed and argued this appeal, in general, as if it were from a final judgment on the merits. This was caused by an order of the District Court, possibly an inadvertence, which denied “motions for temporary and permanent injunctions”. The fact nevertheless remains that the record is bereft of any order, before or after the commencement of the hearing, directing a trial of the ease on the merits, consolidated with the hearing of the application for a preliminary injunction, Rule 65(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, only the action on the preliminary injunction is presently reviewable.

We are of the view that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the preliminary injunction. Pending the development of a full and complete record in a trial, and a final judgment, we abstain from a discussion of the merits. We do note, however, that the trial, if and when held, should be limited to the named defendants.

In view of the thorough exposition of the law of preliminary injunctions recently written by Judge Thornberry, there is no necessity to resurvey that ground, see Canal Authority of State of Florida v. Callaway, 5 Cir., 1974, 489 F.2d 567. Neither the District Court nor counsel had the benefit of Canal Authority in handling this case below.

We therefore affirm the denial of the preliminary injunction and remand to the District Court for further proceedings.

Affirmed and remanded.