Court Opinion

ID: 9709188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:42:18.652138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:46.656973
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Time and time again, this Court has emphasized the limited scope of review in appeals from decrees granting or denying a preliminary injunction. In Bryant *470Co. v. Sling Testing and Repair Co., 471 Pa. 1, 369 A.2d 1164 (1977), this Court reaffirmed that:
“ ‘ “The scope of our review on an appeal from a decree either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is to examine the record only to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below. . . . ” Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-44, 123 A.2d 626, 627 (1956).’ ”
Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing and Repair Co., 471 Pa. at 6, 369 A.2d at 1166-67, quoting Albee Homes, Inc. v. Caddie Homes, Inc., 417 Pa. 177, 181, 207 A.2d 768, 770 (1965). Accord, Sidco Paper Co. v. Aaron, 465 Pa. 586, 351 A.2d 250 (1976). The Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County found that a preliminary injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and appellee’s evidence of its business relationship amply supports this determination. This Court should therefore affirm the order of the Superior Court affirming the decree of the Court of Common Pleas.
O’BRIEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.