TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Scott Paper Company and International Paper Company v. Gulf Coast Pulpwood Association, Inc., Etc.

SCOTT PAPER COMPANY and International Paper Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GULF COAST PULPWOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., Et Al., Etc., Defendants-Appellees

Scott Paper Co. & Int'l Paper Co. v. Gulf Coast Pulpwood Ass'n, 491 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 18, 1974
Docket
No. 73-3262
Judges
Coleman, Ainsworth, Gee
Citations
491 F.2d 11985 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 29891974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9619

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The parties have briefed and argued this appeal, in general, as if it were from a final judgment on the merits. This was caused by an order of the District Court, possibly an inadvertence, which denied “motions for temporary and permanent injunctions”. The fact nevertheless remains that the record is bereft of any order, before or after the commencement of the hearing, directing a trial of the ease on the merits, consolidated with the hearing of the application for a preliminary injunction, Rule 65(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, only the action on the preliminary injunction is presently reviewable.

We are of the view that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the preliminary injunction. Pending the development of a full and complete record in a trial, and a final judgment, we abstain from a discussion of the merits. We do note, however, that the trial, if and when held, should be limited to the named defendants.

In view of the thorough exposition of the law of preliminary injunctions recently written by Judge Thornberry, there is no necessity to resurvey that ground, see Canal Authority of State of Florida v. Callaway, 5 Cir., 1974, 489 F.2d 567 . Neither the District Court nor counsel had the benefit of Canal Authority in handling this case below.

We therefore affirm the denial of the preliminary injunction and remand to the District Court for further proceedings.

Affirmed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 11993: 219762026peak 1993 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Howard H, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974) 416

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list