See, Amalgamated Clothing v. Earle Indus. See, East Poinsett Sch. In this case, appellants are precluded from establishing that the chancellor abused her discretion because they do not challenge her ruling that no irreparable harm had been suffered. Indeed, they contend that the strike was illegal per se and that this factor alone supports injunctive relief. For over a century, this court has required proof of facts establishing that the moving party is entitled to injunctive relief from a court of equity.
Appellants make no attempt to prove irreparable harm.
In effect, they ask us to change this court's longstanding posture on equity jurisdiction without the support of any convincing legal authority. Under such circumstances, this court has, and should, decline to do so. Because appellants failed to prove irreparable harm, we affirm the chancellor's order. Glaze, J., dissents. Corbin, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.