Case Name: Ernest M. IKIRT et al., Appellants, v. LEE NATIONAL CORPORATION and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-04-12
Citations: 358 F.2d 726
Docket Number: No. 15605
Parties: Ernest M. IKIRT et al., Appellants, v. LEE NATIONAL CORPORATION and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 358
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
Ernest M. IKIRT et al., Appellants, v. LEE NATIONAL CORPORATION and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Appellees.
No. 15605.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued March 8, 1966.
Decided April 12, 1966.
A. John May, Philadelphia, Pa. (John B. Martin, Howard R. Moore, Jr., Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
Edwin P. Rome, Philadelphia, Pa. (Goncer M. Krestal, Blank, Rudenko, Klaus & Rome, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee Lee Nat. Corp.
Edward W. Madeira, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief for appellee Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Chattanooga, Tenn.
Before SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a class action in which the appellants seek to enjoin the discontinuance and cancellation of certain group insurance policies maintained for their benefit by their employer, the appellee, Lee National Corporation. The action came before the court below on an application for a preliminary injunction. The present appeal is from the denial of this application.
As a prequisite to the issuance of a preliminary injunction the moving party must show that there is a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation and the likelihood of irreparable injury pendente lite if relief is not granted. Charles Simkin & Sons, Inc. v. Massiah, 289 F.2d 26, 29 (3rd Cir.1961); Societe Comptoir De L'Indus, etc. v. Alexander's Dept. St., 299 F.2d 33, 35, 1 A.L.R.3d 752 (2nd Cir.1962); Goldman v. Henry's Drive In, Inc., 314 F.2d 162 (7th Cir.1963); Continental Oil Company v. Frontier Refining Company, 338 F.2d 780 (10th Cir.1964). After a full hearing at which the appellants were afforded adequate opportunity to present their evidence, the court below correctly held that the appellants had failed to show either prerequisite.
The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.