Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale

15 Citing cases

  1. Rinkhoff v. Bononi

    J-S09007-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 8, 2019)

    See id. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the court can hear the merits of the case, as distinguished from a permanent injunction, which is issued to provide permanent redress. See Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale, 131 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); see also 15 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 83:10. Accordingly, these different forms of injunctive relief are governed by separate standards.

  2. Wolk v. Sch. Dist. of Lower Merion

    197 A.3d 730 (Pa. 2018)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that when the trial court enters an order in a non-jury case that disposes of the last remaining claims, it should specify that the hearing is deemed a trial and clarify that post-trial motions are due

    Significantly, moreover, other decisions of the intermediate court hold that dispensation with a final-injunction hearing is appropriate only when premised upon agreement among the litigants. See, e.g. , Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale , 131 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) ("[I]t is inappropriate for a court to treat a hearing for a preliminary injunction as a final hearing and as a basis for a preliminary injunction, unless the parties stipulate to the contrary." (citation omitted) ).

  3. Veneesa, Inc. v. Stevenson

    505 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2022)

    A preliminary injunction is "intended to preserve the status quo and prevent imminent and irreparable harm that might occur before the merits of the case can be heard and determined." Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale, 131 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2015). By contrast, our Supreme Court has described a "special injunction" as granting "relief which is auxiliary to the main relief requested in the complaint."

  4. Smith v. Ivy Lee Real Estate, LLC

    299 C.D. 2021 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Nov. 7, 2024)

    However, a motion for post-trial relief is not necessary when appealing an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction. Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale, 131 A.3d 145, 150-51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).

  5. City of Philadelphia v. A Kensington Joint, LLC

    301 A.3d 988 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    . While a preliminary injunction preserves the status quo, Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale , 131 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), a permanent injunction goes "beyond preservation of the status quo" because it "amounts to affirmative relief, designed to permanently remedy the situation, instead of an interim measure ordered to protect the parties until a final hearing." Soja v. Factoryville Sportsmen's Club , 361 Pa.Super. 473, 522 A.2d 1129, 1132 (1987).

  6. Carlino E. Brandywine v. E. Brandywine Twp.

    367 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 11, 2023)

    Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale, 131 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); see id at 151 n.6 ("A court's final disposition of a request for permanent injunctive relief is independent of its determination relating to preliminary injunctive relief and the [granting] of the latter does not foreclose an order [denying] a permanent injunction.").

  7. Prestige Design On Germantown LLC v. City of Philadelphia

    245 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Apr. 19, 2023)

    (1) the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages; (2) greater injury would result from refusing an injunction than from granting it, and, concomitantly, the issuance of an injunction will not substantially harm other interested parties in the proceedings; (3) the injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct; (4) the party seeking the injunction is likely to prevail on the merits; (5) the injunction is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and (6) the injunction will not adversely affect the public interest. Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale, 131 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (citing Dragoni v. Borough of Ambler, 37 A.3d 27, 31 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)).

  8. Samango v. Squires Golf Club

    1059 C.D. 2021 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 23, 2023)

    "[A] preliminary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo and prevent imminent and irreparable harm that might occur before the merits of the case can be heard and determined." Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale, 131 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). It is well settled that

  9. In re Marconi Plaza

    298 A.3d 1171 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2022)

    "[A] preliminary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo and prevent imminent and irreparable harm that might occur before the merits of the case can be heard and determined." Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale , 131 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). Here, the Columbus statue sat "unhidden and exposed to public view within the confines of Marconi Plaza" since 1976.

  10. Commonwealth v. Alston

    1119 C.D. 2020 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 15, 2022)   Cited 1 times
    Vacating injunction and remanding for new hearing

    In Lindeman v. Borough of Meyersdale, 131 A.3d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), taxpayers sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the borough from contracting with a new waste disposal company. In granting the preliminary injunction, the trial court directed the borough to terminate the new contract and to accept the bid of the former waste disposal contractor.