SYLVIA RICHLAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
LOU R. CRANDALL ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND GEORGE A. FULLER COMPANY, BCLM, INC., CLOYCE K. BOX, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction is moot because the events sought to be restrained have already occurred.
Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to restrain the holding of a special stockholders' meeting and the sale of corporate assets. The district cour…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prospective Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
[*184] PER CURIAM:
On the argument of this and the companion appeal Klastorin v. Roth, et al., 353 F. 2d 182 (2 Cir. 1965), we were advised that these two cases, arising out of the same transactions, have been consolidated by the District Court for trial, have been assigned to a Rule 2 Judge1 and both cases will be tried shortly.
The relief which was sought by the motion for a temporary injunction2 and denied by Judge McGohey would be impossible of fulfillment for the events which Richland sought to restrain have already occurred. The appeal is therefore moot.3 See Sawyer v. Pioneer Mill Co., 300 F. 2d 200 (9th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 814, 83 S.Ct. 24, 9 L.Ed. 2d 55.
Appeal dismissed.
. General Rules for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
. “ * * * staying and restraining the holding of the special meeting of stockholders of George A. Puller Company, which is scheduled for Monday, June 7, 1965, at 12 o’clock noon, at the offices of the Corporation, 117 Main Street, Plemington, Hunterdon County, New Jersey; (2) why the Court should not hold a hearing and issue a preliminary injunction restraining the George A. Puller Company from holding any meeting for the approval of the sale of its assets, as prescribed in the said Exhibit 1 and as prayed for in the verified complaint, and enjoining the consummation of such sale, pending a trial and final judgment and decree in this action, * *
. Our ruling is not to be understood as an adjudication on the merits and the Rule 2 Judge may, in his discretion, grant whatever prospective injunctive relief he deems advisable and necessary in order to maintain the status quo.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klastorin v. Roth, 353 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1965)
Authorities Cited
- Bankers Tr. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1962)
- Sawyer v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 371 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1962)
- Sawyer v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 300 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1962)
- Klastorin v. Roth, 353 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1965)