MITCHELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.
v.
PENNY STORES, INC.
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.
A district court granted an interlocutory injunction against enforcement of certain Mississippi statutes while a constitutional challenge proceeded to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restraining the state from enforcing the disputed statutory provisions pending a full hearing on the merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
In this suit, brought to enjoin the enforcement of the provisions of §§ 2 (c), 11, and 13 of article 1 of chapter 90 of the Laws of Mississippi of 1930, an application was made to the District Court of the United States for an interlocutory injunction. The District Court, composed of three judges (U. S. C., Title 28, § 380), granted an interlocutory injunction upon the giving by the plaintiffs of a bond payable to the State of Mississippi in the sum of $5,000, conditioned as required by law, restraining the enforcement of the statutory provisions until the cause could be fully heard and determined. No opinion was rendered by the District Court, and the only question'presented by the record upon this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in granting an injunction until the case could be heard upon the merits. Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S. 229, 231; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 278 U. S. 322, 326; National Fire Insurance Co. v. Thompson, 281 U. S. 331, 338. The order was made prior to the decision of this Court in State Board of Commissioners v. Jackson, 283 U. S. 527, and, as no abuse of discretion is shown, the order must be affirmed.
Mr. W. L. Guice, with whom Messrs. George T. Mitchell, Attorney General of Mississippi, and J. A. Lauderdale, Assistant Attorney General, were on-the brief, for appellants.
Messrs. Wm. H. Watkins, Martin A. Schenck, Clark McKercher, Robert S. Marx, and W. H. Danñat Pell were on the brief, for appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc. v. Numanna Labs. Corp., 215 F.2d 382 (7th Cir. 1954)…its discretion in allowing the preliminary injunction, and this court is not authorized to reverse or modify such a decree unless such abuse is clearly shown. Citation of a few of the many cases to this effect will suffice. Mitchell v. Penny Stores, 284 U.S. 576, 52 S.Ct. 27, 76 L. Ed. 500; State of Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 231, 49 S.Ct. 266, 73 L.Ed. 675; Corporation Commission of State of Oklahoma v. Cary, 296 U.S. 452, 458, 56 S.Ct. 300, 80 L.Ed. 324; National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartfor…
-
Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Hattie A. Johnson, 242 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1957)…o pledge securities of the value of $1,500,-000 and the issuance of the injunction was conditioned upon the complainants giving bond in the sum of $30,000. . Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., v. Numanna, 7 Cir., 215 F. 2d 382; Mitchell v. Penny Stores, 284 U.S. 576, 52 S.Ct. 27, 76 L.Ed. 500; Cone v. Rorick, 5 Cir., 112 F. 2d 894; and cases cited in the notes of decisions to Sec. 1292, Title 28, “Scope of Review'’ notes 251 to 284. . “It also should be clearly understood that, in ruling upon the case in its p…
-
Munoz v. Porto RICO Ry. Light & Power Co., 83 F.2d 262 (1st Cir. 1936)…cord upon this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in granting an injunction until the case could be heard upon the merits. * * * As no abuse of discretion is shown, the order must be affirmed.” Mitchell v. Penny Stores, Inc., 284 U.S. 576, 52 S.Ct. 27, 76 L.Ed. 500. In Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway, 279 U.S. 813, 815, 49 S.Ct. 256, 73 L.Ed. 972, in a per curiam the Supreme Court laid down the rule: [*269] “Where the questions presented by an application for an interlocutory injunction are…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1929)
- State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs of Ind. v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1931)
- Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Thompson, 281 U.S. 331 (U.S. 1930)
- United Fuel Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of W. Va., 278 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1929)