The Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp. (1980)
green
· 423 citation events
across 31 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198020032026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
HR Staffing Consultants LLC v. Richard Butts (2015)
See Pappan Enters., Inc. v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 143 F.3d 800, 805 (3d Cir.1998) (“Grounds for irreparable injury include ... loss of trade....”); Cont’l Grp., 614 F.2d at 358-59; see also Nat’l Starch & Chem.
green
Mississippi Power & Light Co. & Mississippi Public Service Commission v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. (1985)
Corp., 614 F.2d at 358 ("In all of these cases, the effect on the public interest considered by this Court was not that justice be done, but that specific acts presumptively benefiting the public not be halted until the merits could be reached and a determination made as to what justice required.").
"In all of these cases, the effect on the public interest considered by this Court was not that justice be done, but that specific acts presumptively benefiting the public not be halted until the merits could be reached and a determination made as to what justice required."
green
Abraham v. Delaware Department of Corrections (2009)
“The requisite for injunctive relief has been characterized as a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury,” or a “presently existing actual threat; (an injunction) may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights, be those rights protected by statute or by the common law.” Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980) (citing Ammond v. McGahn, 532 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir.1976), …
green
David Adams v. Freedom Forge Corporation (2000)
As we have stated, "injunctions will not be issued merely to allay the fears and apprehensions or to soothe the anxieties of the parties." Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 92 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)). 53 Because the plaintiffs have presented no evidence that the doctors available to them under the new plan are in any way inadequate, or that the mere transfer from one physician …
green
Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp. (2000)
As we have stated, “injunctions will not be issued merely to allay the fears and apprehensions or to soothe the anxieties of the parties.” Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 92 (3d Cir.1992) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980)).
green
Acierno v. New Castle Co. (1994)
The requisite for injunctive relief has been characterized as a "clear showing of immediate irreparable injury," or a "presently existing actual threat; [an injunction] may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury . . . ." Id. at 358 (citations omitted) (quoting Ammond v. McGahn, 532 F.2d 325, 329 (3d Cir. 1976) and Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. B & B Corp., 409 F.2d 614, 618 (3d Cir. 1969)); see also Campbell Soup Co. v. Conagra, Inc., 977 …
citations omitted
green
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. v. ARSLAN (2021)
“The requisite for injunctive relief has been characterized as a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury, or a presently existing actual threat.” Cont’l Grp., Inc., 614 F.2d at 359 (internal quotations omitted).
internal quotations omitted
“The requisite for injunctive relief has been characterized as a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury, or a presently existing actual threat.” Cont’l Grp., Inc., 614 F.2d at 359 (internal quotations omitted).
internal quotations omitted
Continental Group, 614 F.2d at 359 (“[Injunctions will not be issued merely to allay the fears and apprehensions or to soothe the anxieties of the parties.
“[Injunctions will not be issued merely to allay the fears and apprehensions or to soothe the anxieties of the parties. Nor will an injunction be issued to restrain one from doing what he is not attempting and does not intend to do.”
Corp., 614 F.2d 351 , 359 (3d Cir. 1980) (“The harm must be ‘immediate’ or a ‘presently existing actual threat.’”)).
“The harm must be ‘immediate’ or a ‘presently existing actual threat.’”
green
GEODIS USA, LLC v. BRAVI (2023)
Moreover, “it is ‘well-settled law’ that injunctions ‘will not be issued merely to allay the fears and apprehensions or to soothe the anxieties of the parties.’” Jd. (quoting Cont’l Grp., Inc., 614 F.2d at 359).
green
LTL Management LLC - Adversary Proceeding (2022)
See Campbell Soup, 977 F.2d at 91 (holding that “[a] threat of disclosure [of trade secrets] may establish immediate irreparable harm” but “a risk of irreparable harm is not enough”) (internal quotations and citations omitted);4 Cont’l Group, 614 F.2d at 358 (“Risk of harm if information is inadvertently disclosed, however, is not sufficient to satisfy the standard for granting a preliminary injunction.”).
“Risk of harm if information is inadvertently disclosed, however, is not sufficient to satisfy the standard for granting a preliminary injunction.”
green
LTL Management LLC (2022)
See Campbell Soup, 977 F.2d at 91 (holding that “[a] threat of disclosure [of trade secrets] may establish immediate irreparable harm” but “a risk of irreparable harm is not enough”) (internal quotations and citations omitted);4 Cont’l Group, 614 F.2d at 358 (“Risk of harm if information is inadvertently disclosed, however, is not sufficient to satisfy the standard for granting a preliminary injunction.”).
“Risk of harm if information is inadvertently disclosed, however, is not sufficient to satisfy the standard for granting a preliminary injunction.”
Instead, “[a] plaintiff has the burden of proving a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.’ ” ECRI, 809 F.2d at 226 (quoting Cont’l Grp., Inc., 614 F.2d at 359).
green
Zokaites v. Land-Cellular Corp. (2006)
ECRI 809 F.2d at 226 (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980)).
green
Angstadt Ex Rel. Angstadt v. Midd-West School (2002)
The moving party has the burden of proving a “clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.” Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980) (citation omitted).
green
Michael Logan Lowery v. Isabel Gallegos, et al. (2025)
Hunt, 646 F. Supp. at 65 (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3rd Cir. 1980)).
green
BioTraceIT Corporation v. Deborah Dullen, et al. (2025)
Pa. Jan. 8, 2021) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 358 (3d Cir. 1980)).
green
HICE v. EQT COPORATION (2025)
Plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief “ha[ve] the burden of proving a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.’” ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)).
green
Emmers v. Mitchener (2025)
Hunt, 646 F. Supp. at 65 (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3rd Cir. 1980)).
green
RENTAS v. KUHN (2025)
Dep’t of Corr., 331 F. App’x 929, 932 (3d Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)).
green
ATS TREE SERVICES, LLC v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (2024)
ECRI, 809 F.2d at 226 (quoting Continental Group, Inc., 614 F.2d at 359).
green
SIGNANT HEALTH HOLDING CORP. v. DEBONIS (2024)
Instead, “[a] plaintiff has the burden of proving a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.’” ECRI, 809 F.2d at 226 (quoting Cont’l Grp., Inc., 614 F.2d at 359).
green
Housing & Redevelopment Insurance Exchange v. Fudge (2024)
Continental, 614 F.2d at 359; see also Public Serv.
green
Glenda Wrensford, MD. v. Virgin Islands Government Hospital and Health Facilities Corporation Including Roy L… (2024)
Hospltal and Health Facilities et a1 Case No ST 2023 CV 00399 Cue as 2024 VI Super 12 Memorandum 01mm“ Pa e 18 0t 33 1T4} Wrensford 5 Notification of Personnel Action ( NOPA ) was signed by RLSH 5 Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Director of Human Resources 73 In addition, Wrensford 5 August 30 2013 employment offer was signed by both the Intenm Chief Executive Officer and the Chairperson of Schnieder Regional Medical Center Board of Tmstees 2‘ Finally Wrens…
green
JACKSON v. KNIGHT (2023)
Douvos v. Quintana, 382 F. App’x 119, 122 (3d Cir. 2009); Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980).
green
TETTERTON v. WARDEN, FCI FORT DIX (2023)
Douvos v. Quintana, 382 F. App’x 119, 122 (3d Cir. 2009); Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980).
green
ROMANO v. WARDEN, FCI FAIRTON (2023)
Douvos v. Quintana, 382 F. App’x 119, 122 (3d Cir. 2009); Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980).
green
Miller v. Mott (2023)
As the District Court for the District of Delaware has held, “where the alleged harm is economic, the threshold of peculiarity that the proposed action threatens must be high, because purely economic injuries are generally compensable and do not require injunctive relief.”79 The reason, therefore, that a party seeking an injunction will face a higher burden when their alleged harm is purely monetary is that money is fungible – as 76 ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 2…
green
Team Systems International, LLC (2023)
As the District Court for the District of Delaware has held, “where the alleged harm is economic, the threshold of peculiarity that the proposed action threatens must be high, because purely economic injuries are generally compensable and do not require injunctive relief.”79 The reason, therefore, that a party seeking an injunction will face a higher burden when their alleged harm is purely monetary is that money is fungible – as 76 ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 2…
green
BORTOLOTTI v. KNIGHT (2022)
Douvos v. Quintana, 382 F. App’x 119, 122 (3d Cir. 2009); Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980).
green
Brooks v. State College Area School District (2022)
Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 77 Glasco v. Hills, 558 F.2d 179, 181 (3d Cir. 1977). 78 See Doc. 4 at pp. 19-20; Doc. 13 at p. 18 (bottom). 79 See Doc. 4 at pp. 19-20 (citing Biediger v. Quinnipiac Univ., 616 F. Supp. 2d 277, 291 (D.
internal quotations and citation omitted
green
Martinez v. Rivello (2022)
“Speculative injury does not constitute a showing of irreparable harm.” Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980).
green
Univar, Inc. v. Geisenberger (2022)
Corp., 614 F.2d 351 , 359 (3d Cir. 1980) (“The requisite for injunctive relief has been characterized as a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury or a presently existing actual threat.”); ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that “[e]stablishing a risk of irreparable harm is not enough” to warrant injunctive relief); Synthes, Inc. v. Gregoris, 228 F. Supp. 3d 421, 440 (E.D.
“The requisite for injunctive relief has been characterized as a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury or a presently existing actual threat.”
Such allegation is insufficient to establish a “clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.” 8 See Continental Grp., 614 F.2d at 359.
green
Hobbs v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A. (2021)
Corp., 614 F.2d 351 , 358 (3d Cir. 1980) (“If the interest in the enforcement of contractual obligations were the equivalent of the public interest factor …, it would be no more than a makeweight for the court’s consideration of the moving party’s probability of eventual success on the merits.”).
“If the interest in the enforcement of contractual obligations were the equivalent of the public interest factor …, it would be no more than a makeweight for the court’s consideration of the moving party’s probability of eventual success on the merits.”
A plaintiff has the burden of proving a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury”); ECRI v. McGraw–Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir.1987); Cont’l Grp., Inc., 614 F.2d at 359).
green
LIRIANO OLIVO v. TSOUKARIS (2020)
When considering whether the specific action taken by the court serves the public interest, the guiding principle is assessing whether “not that justice be done, but that specific acts presumptively benefitting the public not be halted until the merits could be reached and a determination made as to what justice required.” Continental Group, Inc., v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 358 (3d Cir. 1980).
green
TALBERT v. CORRECTIONAL DENTAL ASSOCIATES (2019)
Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797 , 801 (3d Cir. 1989) (“The preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm’”)). 66 ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987) (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)). 67 Moneyham, 723 Fed.
green
Allied Environmental Service, Inc. v. Roth, K. (2019)
See Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980) (“[A]n injunction may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights, . . . .”).11 Consequently, this claim is similarly without merit.
“[A]n injunction may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights, . . . .”
green
City of Philadelphia v. Sessions (2017)
A plaintiff has the burden of proving a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.’ ” ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980).
green
Brian ex rel. A.B. v. Line Mountain School District (2014)
Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
A plaintiff has the burden of proving a “clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.” ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir.1987) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980)).
green
Whitfield v. Chartiers Valley School District (2010)
ECRI, 809 F.2d at 226 (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980)).
green
Brown v. City of Pittsburgh (2008)
ECRI, 809 F.2d at 226 (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980)).
ECRI, 809 F.2d at 226 (citing Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.1980)).
green
Township of West Orange v. Whitman (1998)
SI Handling Systems, Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1254 (3d Cir.1985); see also AT & T v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1103 , 115 S.Ct. 1838 , 131 L.Ed.2d 757 (1995); Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 903 F.2d 186, 197-98 (3d Cir.1990); Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 356-57 (3d Cir.1980).
green
Score Board, Inc. v. Upper Deck Co. (1997)
The requisite for injunc-tive relief has been characterized as a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury,’ or a ‘presently existing actual threat; [an injunction] may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury ...’” Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 655 (3d Cir.1994) (citations omitted) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 358 (3d Cir.1980)).
In fact, the movant must set forth a "clear showing of immediate irreparable injury," or a "presently existing actual threat." Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 655 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 358 (3d Cir. 1980)).
Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 655 (3d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted) (quoting Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 358 (3d Cir. 1980)).