explaining that, “for a mandatory injunction to issue, it is essential that a clear right to relief in the plaintiff be established”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, “for a mandatory injunction to issue, it is essential that a clear right to relief in the plaintiff be established”
- “Only if it is plain that no grounds exist to support the decree ... will we interfere with the decision of the Chancellor.”
- “Because one of the elements which the moving party must establish is that ‘his right to relief is clear,’ it is necessary that the moving party be able to show that he has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. It is thus entirely proper for a court to consider testimony going to the merits to this extent....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, J.,
dissents, believing that the record reflects the existence of apparently reasonable grounds supporting the chancellor’s grant of a preliminary injunction. He would therefore reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court and affirm the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County.
EAGEN and NIX, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.