Court Opinion

ID: 9646463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:00:35.511628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:38.466938
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the decision of the Court. I write this separate statement because of . the suggestion in the opinion that the “mandatory” nature of the injunction in this case makes it especially suspect. In my view, the distinction between “mandatory” and “prohibitory” preliminary injunctions is largely illusory and one that we would do well to abandon.
The Commonwealth Court in the instant case ordered in part that the Commonwealth “cause all persons presently occupying said premises [i. e., the Oakdale Intensive Treatment Unit] as a juvenile detention facility to vacate the same within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.” This decree is by its terms “mandatory” in that it orders the Commonwealth to take action to remove the residents within a time certain. And this Court has stated that “a mandatory [preliminary] injunction . should be issued only in rare cases and certainly more sparingly than one which is merely prohibitory.” Roberts v. School District of Scranton, 462 Pa. 464, 469-70, 341 A.2d 475, 478 (1975). Accord, Zebra v. School District of Pittsburgh, 449 Pa. 432, 437, 296 A.2d 748 (1972); McMullan v. Wohlgemuth, 444 Pa. 563, 570, 281 A.2d 836 (1971).
*586Nonetheless, one may question whether our review of the decree in the case at bar would have been less searching had the court below decreed that the Commonwealth be restrained from keeping juvenile detainees on the premises after a certain time. Such a decree would be, by its terms, merely “prohibitory.”1 Yet I think it clear that such a preliminary injunction would also have to be vacated for the reasons outlined in the Court’s opinion. Indeed, the mandatory portion of the Commonwealth Court’s decree was merely the obverse of its prohibitory order. The Court first “enjoined [respondent, the Commonwealth] from occupying or using — the subject property as a unit for juveniles adjudicated delinquent,” and then specified that the implementation of this decree be accompanied by the removal of the occupants of the facility within 14 days.” The prohibition could hardly be complied with in any other manner; all that the “mandatory” segment of this decree added was a time limit for compliance.
“The ‘mandatory’ injunction has not yet been devised that could not be stated in ‘prohibitory’ terms.” Developments in the Law — Injunctions, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1062 (1965). Other respected commendators have been equally critical of the distinction. See, 4 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § 1359a, at 970 n.16 (5th ed. J. Symons 1941) (“manifestly absurd”); Z. Chafee, Some Problems of Equity 357 (1950) (“obsolete”). Accordingly, the scope of a chancellor’s discretion (and the scope of appellate review) should not turn on such a semantical difference. The distinction appears to lack any historical foundation. Developments, supra at 1062; Leubsdorf, The Standard for Preliminary Injunctions, 91 Harv.L.Rev. 525, 535 (1978). In addition, it should be candidly acknowledged that neither chancellors nor appellate judges pay much attention to the distinction in practice. *587Even if the decree in this case had been put in “prohibitory” terms, it would be impossible to be ignorant of the fact that the juveniles at Oakdale would have to be moved somewhere. And as the Court properly notes, the closing of the Oakdale unit, even if temporary, might well have worked irreparable harm on the Commonwealth’s ability to provide a rehabilitative atmosphere for the juveniles in question.
An analysis of the cases suggests that courts of equity, rather than displaying any firm adherence to the mandatory/prohibitory distinctions, examine the merits of each case and demonstrate a “reluctance to decree burdensome relief without a full hearing.” Leubsdorf, supra, at 535. That is to say, courts should and do look at the underlying factual and legal controversies to determine both (1) the degree of irreparable harm that may befall either side if equitable relief is granted or withheld, and (2) the probability of success for the plaintiff after a full hearing.2 See, e. g., Zebra v. School District of Pittsburgh, supra; McMullan v. Wohlgemuth, supra; Brown’s Appeal, 62 Pa. 17 (1869). See generally, Cox v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 319 F.Supp. 92, 95-96 (D.Minn.1970), and cases cited therein; Leubsdorf, supra; Developments, supra, at 1055-63.
The Court’s opinion, however, reflects the kind of examination suggested above, and on this basis I join in it.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

. So too was Lord Eldon’s decree directing a defendant to repair a leaky dam. Rather than order repairs to be made, however, Lord Eldon “prohibited” the defendant from “farther impeding . . . the Plaintiff ... by continuing to keep the said canals or the banks, gates, locks, or works . out of good repair . . . ” Lane v. Newdigate, 10 Ves.Jr. 192, 193, 32 Eng.Rep. 818, 819 (Ch. 1804).

. I venture to suggest that we would also do well to abandon the emphasis on the preservation of the status quo as a major factor in granting or withholding preliminary injunctive relief. A court “interferes just as much when it orders the status quo preserved as when it changes it.” Leubsdorf, supra, at 546. Moreover, this question “eddies off into conundrums about what status is decisive.” Id. See, e. g., Roberts v. School District of Scranton, supra, 462 Pa. at 469 n.1, 341 A.2d 475, rev’g 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 464, 320 A.2d 141 (1974). Attention should instead be focused on the degree to which judicial action or inaction would affect the rights of the parties.