Court Opinion

ID: 9465798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:56:01.503823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:22.587084
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The motion for a stay of execution of the order of the district court dated May 7, 1979, is granted pending appeal of that order granting a preliminary injunction against the defendants. The appeal of that order is hereby expedited for hearing at the September 1979 term of this court. The parties are ordered to arrange a satisfactory briefing schedule with this court’s appeal expediter to permit the appeal to be heard in September.
This order is without prejudice to the right of either party to file any appropriate motion in this court to dissolve or modify the stay in the event the state district court or the state supreme court shall, prior to this court’s September term, render a decision or decisions in cases relating directly or indirectly to the issues in this case.
We do not at this time rule on the question whether or not the trial court should have abstained from accepting immediate *1147jurisdiction of this case. However, once abstention is decreed, it seems to us that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the state courts to act.
This order is conditioned upon the defendants’ filing a statement that in the event the order issuing the temporary injunction is finally affirmed, defendants concede that the effective date of the injunction for payment purposes will be the date of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court, i. e., May 7, 1979.