Court Opinion

ID: 9645215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:16:36.789632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:25.317774
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones:
I would affirm the decree of the court below which denied injunctive relief. However, in so doing, I neither consider nor determine the merits of the issues raised in the court below.
Affirmance of this decree seems mandated for two reasons. First, the relief sought in the court below was to restrain submission to the electorate at the Primary Election of April 23, 1968 for approval or disapproval of certain amendments to our Constitu*4tion; such election has been held, the relief sought cannot be now granted and we, therefore, are presented with no justiciable controversy on this appeal. Second, it has long been the established and salutary rule that on an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction the appellate court will not reverse if there existed any reasonable ground to sustain the denial of injunctive relief and the court below did not commit any palpable error of law. See: City Line Open Hearth, Inc. v. Hotel, Motel & Club Employees’ Union, 413 Pa. 420, 197 A. 2d 614 (1964); McGinley v. Scott, 401 Pa. 310, 164 A. 2d 424 (1960). The court below did have a reasonable ground for and committed no palpable legal error in denying injunctive relief.
I would affirm the decree without prejudice to appellants to raise any issues involving the merits of this controversy in another more appropriate proceeding.