decree rule in Pennsylvania

2025An appellate court will not interfere with the trial court’s order unless it is clear that “no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied[.]” Id. (quoting Roberts, 341 A.2d at 478 (Pa. 1975)).

2025An appellate court will not interfere with the trial court’s order unless it is clear that “no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied[.]” Id. (quoting Roberts, 341 A.2d at 478 (Pa. 1975)).

2024“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision - 15 - J-A22024-23 of the trial court.” Summit Towne Ctr., Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995, 1000 (Pa. 2003) (quotation marks, citations, and corrections omitted).

2023Only where “it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the [trial court].” Id. 4 A.2d at 1000.

2024“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the [trial court].” Id. 7 In their brief, Lot Owners identify the trial court’s June 22, 2022, order, denying their first request for preliminary injunctive relief as an “Order Under Review.” See Lot Owners’ Brief at 2, 28.

2021“The only circumstances warranting a reversal of a trial court’s decision granting or denying a preliminary injunction are when it is clear ‘that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied.’” Hatfield Twp., 15 A.3d at 551 (quoting Mazzie v. Commonwealth, 432 A.2d 985, 988 (Pa. 1981)). 7 merits; (5) the injunction is suited to the activity; and (6) the grant of an injunction will not harm the public interest.7 SEIU Healthcare, 104 A.3d at 501-02 ; Philips Bros., 999 A.2d at 657 .

1993This court will affirm the grant or denial of an injunction unless it is shown that “no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied.” Bell v. Thornburgh, 491 Pa. 263, 267 , 420 A.2d 443, 445 (1980).

1993This court will affirm the grant or denial of an injunction unless it is shown that “no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied.” Bell v. Thornburgh, 491 Pa. 263, 267 , 420 A.2d 443, 445 (1980).

2022Allegheny Anesthesiology Associates, Inc. v. Allegheny General Hosp., 826 A.2d 886 , 891 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2017Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the [court]. -5- J-A19010-17 Allegheny Anesthesiology Associates, Inc. v. Allegheny General Hosp., 826 A.2d 886, 891 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quoting Shanaman v. Yellow Cab Co. of Philadelphia, 421 A.2d 664, 666 (Pa. 1980)).

1993“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the chancellor.” Coatesville Development Company v. United Food Workers, 374 Pa.Super. at 337 , 542 A.2d at 1384 (citations omitted).

1993“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the chancellor.” Coatesville Development Company v. United Food Workers, 374 Pa.Super. at 337 , 542 A.2d at 1384 (citations omitted).

1982Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the Chancellor. ... ‘In order to sustain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff’s right to relief must be clear, the need for relief must be immediate, and the injury must be irreparable if the injunction is not granted.’ Id., 496 Pa. at 10-11 , 436 A.2d at 126-27 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

1982Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the Chancellor. ... ‘In order to sustain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff’s right to relief must be clear, the need for relief must be immediate, and the injury must be irreparable if the injunction is not granted.’ Id., 496 Pa. at 10-11 , 436 A.2d at 126-27 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

2020Our review of a trial court’s order denying or granting a preliminary injunction is “highly deferential.” “This highly deferential standard of review states that in reviewing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction, an appellate court is directed to examine the record to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below.” Warehime v. Warehime, 860 A.2d 41, 46 (Pa. 2004) (citation, internal quotation marks, and footnote omitted).

2019Our review of a trial court's order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is “highly deferential”.2 Warehime v. Warehime, 580 Pa. 201 , 860 A.2d 41, 46 (2004).

2019Crop. v. PennDOT, 608 Pa. 584, 602 , 13 A.3d 925, 935-36 (2011)); accord Shenango Valley Osteopathic Hosp. v. Dep’t of Health, 499 Pa. 39, 50 , 451 A.2d 424 , 439 (1982) 3 The Commonwealth Court also faulted Appellants for seeking only to preliminarily enjoin a portion of the act in the context of litigation in which they claimed the entire act should be stricken.

2019Crop. v. PennDOT, 608 Pa. 584, 602 , 13 A.3d 925, 935-36 (2011)); accord Shenango Valley Osteopathic Hosp. v. Dep’t of Health, 499 Pa. 39, 50 , 451 A.2d 424 , 439 (1982) 3 The Commonwealth Court also faulted Appellants for seeking only to preliminarily enjoin a portion of the act in the context of litigation in which they claimed the entire act should be stricken.

2018Allegheny Anesthesiology Associates, Inc. v. Allegheny General Hosp., 826 A.2d 886, 891 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quoting Shanaman v. Yellow Cab Co. of Philadelphia, 421 A.2d 664, 666 (Pa. 1980)).

2017Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the [court]. -5- J-A19010-17 Allegheny Anesthesiology Associates, Inc. v. Allegheny General Hosp., 826 A.2d 886, 891 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quoting Shanaman v. Yellow Cab Co. of Philadelphia, 421 A.2d 664, 666 (Pa. 1980)).

2003We may reverse only if there are no grounds to support the decree or if the rule of law was palpably erroneous or misapplied.” Chmura v. Deegan, 398 Pa.Super. 532 , 581 A.2d 592, 593 (1990) (citations omitted). ¶ 12 Mrs. Stacy claims that the injunction cannot be sustained because the underlying civil action is based solely on an intentional tort committed by Mr. Stacy, and therefore, Mrs. Walter has no right to relief against Mrs. Stacy.

2003We may reverse only if there are no grounds to support the decree or if the rule of law was palpably erroneous or misapplied.” Chmura v. Deegan, 398 Pa.Super. 532 , 581 A.2d 592, 593 (1990) (citations omitted). ¶ 12 Mrs. Stacy claims that the injunction cannot be sustained because the underlying civil action is based solely on an intentional tort committed by Mr. Stacy, and therefore, Mrs. Walter has no right to relief against Mrs. Stacy.

1986Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the Chancellor. ... ‘In order to sustain a preliminary injunction, the plaintifFs right to relief must be clear, the need for relief must be immediate, and the injury must be irreparable if the injunction is not granted.’ Zebra v. Pittsburgh School District, 449 Pa. 432, 437 , 296 A.2d 748, 750 (1972).

1986Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the Chancellor. ... ‘In order to sustain a preliminary injunction, the plaintifFs right to relief must be clear, the need for relief must be immediate, and the injury must be irreparable if the injunction is not granted.’ Zebra v. Pittsburgh School District, 449 Pa. 432, 437 , 296 A.2d 748, 750 (1972).

2023“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decree.” Id. (citation omitted). - 10 - J-S04035-23 and determined.” Constantakis v. Bryan Advisory Servs., LLC, 275 A.3d 998, 1016-17 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

2022“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decree.” Id. (citation omitted). -6- J-A20041-22 him from appearing/protesting within the specified boundary deprives him of his right to engage in constitutionally protected expressive conduct without leaving open ample alternative methods of communication.4 A. “The purposes of a preliminary injunction are to preserve the status quo and prevent imminent and irreparable harm which might occur before the merits of the case can be he

1991“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the chancellor.” PHK-P, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 23, 381 Pa.Super. 544 , 554 A.2d 519, 520 (1989).

1991“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the chancellor.” PHK-P, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 23, 381 Pa.Super. 544 , 554 A.2d 519, 520 (1989).

2023“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decree.” Id. (citation omitted). - 10 - J-S04035-23 and determined.” Constantakis v. Bryan Advisory Servs., LLC, 275 A.3d 998, 1016-17 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

2022“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decree.” Id. (citation omitted). -6- J-A20041-22 him from appearing/protesting within the specified boundary deprives him of his right to engage in constitutionally protected expressive conduct without leaving open ample alternative methods of communication.4 A. “The purposes of a preliminary injunction are to preserve the status quo and prevent imminent and irreparable harm which might occur before the merits of the case can be he

2020“We disturb the trial court’s decision only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied.” Turner Const. v. Plumbers Local 690, 130 A.3d 47, 57 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2019“We disturb the trial court's decision ‘only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied . . . .’” Turner Const. v. Plumbers Local 690, 130 A.3d 47, 57 (Pa. Super. 2015).

1996Psi Upsilon v. University of Pennsylvania, 404 Pa.Super. 604, 608 , 591 A.2d 755, 757-58 , allocatur denied, 528 Pa. 637 , 598 A.2d 994 (1991) (quoting Boehm v. University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, 392 Pa.Super. 502, 505-506 , 573 A.2d 575, 577 (1990)).

1996Psi Upsilon v. University of Pennsylvania, 404 Pa.Super. 604, 608 , 591 A.2d 755, 757-58 , allocatur denied, 528 Pa. 637 , 598 A.2d 994 (1991) (quoting Boehm v. University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, 392 Pa.Super. 502, 505-506 , 573 A.2d 575, 577 (1990)).

1956See Dennison v. Goehring, 6 Pa. 402, 403 ; Bailey’s Est., 291 Pa. 421, 423 .

1939See Dennison v. Goehring, 6 Pa. 402, 403; Bailey’s Est., 291 Pa. 421, 423 .

1992We have interpreted this standard to mean that “[a]n appellate court will interfere with the decision of the chancellor only if it is clear that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule was palpably erroneous or misapplied ...” Bell, supra at 267 , 420 A.2d at 445 ; Willman v. Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 505 Pa. 263, 269 , 479 A.2d 452, 455 (1984); quoting Intraworld, Inc. v. Girard Trust Bank, 461 Pa. 343, 354 , 336 A.2d 316, 332 (1975).

1992We have interpreted this standard to mean that “[a]n appellate court will interfere with the decision of the chancellor only if it is clear that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule was palpably erroneous or misapplied ...” Bell, supra at 267 , 420 A.2d at 445 ; Willman v. Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 505 Pa. 263, 269 , 479 A.2d 452, 455 (1984); quoting Intraworld, Inc. v. Girard Trust Bank, 461 Pa. 343, 354 , 336 A.2d 316, 332 (1975).

1996“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the [trial judge].” Id. 474 A.2d at 65 .

1995Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association v. Geisinger, 81 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 421, 474 A.2d 62 (1984). .

2023Mazzie v. Commonwealth, 432 A.2d 985, 988 (Pa. 1981); accord Ambrogi v. Reber, 932 A.2d 969, 975 (Pa.Super. 2007).

2022As this Court in Ambrogi v. Reber, 932 A.2d 969 (Pa. Super. 2007) explained, -5- J-A05010-22 Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995, 1000 (Pa. 2003) (citation and original brackets omitted).

1992We have interpreted this standard to mean that “[a]n appellate court will interfere with the decision of the chancellor only if it is clear that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule was palpably erroneous or misapplied ...” Bell, supra at 267 , 420 A.2d at 445 ; Willman v. Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 505 Pa. 263, 269 , 479 A.2d 452, 455 (1984); quoting Intraworld, Inc. v. Girard Trust Bank, 461 Pa. 343, 354 , 336 A.2d 316, 332 (1975).

1992We have interpreted this standard to mean that “[a]n appellate court will interfere with the decision of the chancellor only if it is clear that no grounds exist to support the decree or that the rule was palpably erroneous or misapplied ...” Bell, supra at 267 , 420 A.2d at 445 ; Willman v. Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 505 Pa. 263, 269 , 479 A.2d 452, 455 (1984); quoting Intraworld, Inc. v. Girard Trust Bank, 461 Pa. 343, 354 , 336 A.2d 316, 332 (1975).

2023“Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree or if the rule of law relied upon was palpably erroneous or misapplied will we interfere with the decision of the trial court.” Iron Age Corp. v. Dvorak, 880 A.2d 657, 662 (Pa.Super. 2005).4 However, we review the grant of a mandatory injunction, which orders a party to undertake a positive act to restore the status quo, with greater scrutiny than we do prohibitory injunctions.