Caulk v. Beal

2 Citing cases

  1. Maldonado v. Houstoun

    177 F.R.D. 311 (E.D. Pa. 1997)   Cited 11 times
    Providing a detailed analysis of why a durational residency applied only to new residents "fails miserably" to relate rationally to promoting self-sufficiency

    In addition to the deprivation of their right to equal protections, plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed due to the loss of much of their cash assistance benefits. In Caulk v. Beal, 447 F.Supp. 44 (E.D.Pa.1977) (Newcomer, J.), this Court recognized the enormity of the harm that the loss of cash assistance benefits visits on low-income persons. Other courts have also recognized that a reduction in subsistence benefits constitutes irreparable harm to persons on the " margin of subsistence."

  2. Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Etc. v. Almarc Mfg.

    553 F. Supp. 1170 (N.D. Ill. 1982)   Cited 9 times
    Reinstating plaintiff truck drivers pending determination on the merits

    Both Santos and Sampson, by using the term "usually," imply that there are situations in which a temporary loss of income can meet the irreparable injury test. Gonzalez v. Chasen, 506 F. Supp. 990, 998 (D.P.R. 1980); Sockwell v. Maloney, 431 F. Supp. 1006, 1012 (D.Conn. 1976); Becker v. Toia, 439 F. Supp. 324, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); Caulk v. Beal, 447 F. Supp. 44, 52 (E.D.Pa. 1977). Under the circumstances of this case the ability to recover damages ultimately is not an adequate remedy at law and does not protect the drivers against irreparable harm. 5. Finding 12 and Conclusion 4 have already reflected the threatened harm to the drivers if preliminary injunctive relief is not granted. Almarc's claimed harm from the granting of an injunction is based on its need to fire drivers hired as replacements.