Opinion ID: 877565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The majority misconstrues the status quo requirement for injunction.

Text: Another reason given by the majority is that the District Court did not preserve the status quo in granting the preliminary injunction. The only status quo that the injunction should preserve, if necessary, is the use Leona Froney placed on the real property. ... The status quo to be maintained, however, is not necessarily the state of affairs that exists at the time the suit was filed. In fact, if it were, then few injunction should be enforceable pending appeal since the vast majority of suits seeking injunctions are filed after the defendant has started to do the disputed acts. Further, if the status quo were limited to the state of affairs at the time of filing, a wrongdoer would be permitted to continue engaging in the disputed conduct until the case was finally resolved, as long as the wrongdoer began to act before the plaintiff filed suit. For this reason, the status quo to be preserved should be the last undisputed state of affairs that existed before the events that gave rise to the pending controversy occurred. This is the rule for granting preliminary injunctions, which are granted even before there has been a trial on the merits... State ex rel. McKinley Automotive v. Oldham (1978), 283 Or. 511, 584 P.2d 741, 743. The majority opinion has not followed the proper rule for preserving the status quo.