North Penn Gas Co. v. Mahosky

3 Citing cases

  1. Smotkin v. Manhattan-Ward, Inc.

    526 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    The purpose behind issuing the injunction is to preserve the status quo, as it exists or previously existed before the acts complained of, preventing irreparable injury or gross injustice. Naus Newlyn, Inc. v.Mason, 295 Pa. Super. 208, 441 A.2d 422 (1982) North Penn GasCo. v. Mahosky, 250 Pa. Super. 366, 378 A.2d 980 (1977). The Order of March 21, 1984 issued a preliminary injunction pending a final hearing.

  2. Naus & Newlyn, Inc. v. Mason

    441 A.2d 422 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)   Cited 8 times
    In Naus, employee Mason agreed to an employment contract with Naus Newlyn, Inc. (N N), barring him from competition with N N, and from soliciting N N clients. Mason later started his own company and he contacted several N N customers. N N filed a complaint in equity seeking to enjoin such contacts.

    See Walker v.O'Bannon, 487 F. Supp. 1151 (W.D.Pa. 1980), affirmed 624 F.2d 1092 (3rd Cir.) (1980). The purpose behind the issuance of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo as it exists or previously existed before the acts complained of, preventing irreparable injury or gross injustice which requires instant injunctive relief. Slott v. Plastic Fabricators, Inc., 402 Pa. 433, 167 A.2d 306 (1961); NorthPenn Gas Co. v. Mahosky, 250 Pa. Super. 366, 378 A.2d 980 (1977). Reviewing the order of the lower court, we find that its order went beyond merely preserving the status quo to the point where the relief granted was the final relief.

  3. Brodsky v. Philadelphia Athletic Club

    277 Pa. Super. 549 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980)   Cited 15 times
    Holding order was not final because chancellor merely threatened to hold party in contempt and issue jail time and fine in future if a decree was not performed

    Pa.R.C.P. No. 1531(a). See also: Slott v. Plastic Fabricators, Inc., 402 Pa. 433, 167 A.2d 306 (1961); North Penn Gas Co. v. Mahosky, 250 Pa. Super. 366, 378 A.2d 980 (1977). In view of our decision that appellants' exceptions should be heard and decided by the court below, the chancellor's enforcement orders of February 27, 1979 and May 29, 1979 are premature. They will be vacated.