14 results for 'cat:"Restraining Order" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Cox finds that the trial court should not have granted a temporary restraining order to prevent the defendant pipeline operator from constructing a
perpendicular pipeline under plaintiff's pipeline. The plaintiff's servitude did not state that it could prohibit underground crossings. A crossing pipeline that meets applicable spacing, depth separation limits, and other protective requirements is not certain to damage, destroy, injure, or interfere with plaintiff's pipeline. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Cox, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 55,534-CA, Categories: Energy, restraining Order, contract
J. Frank partially grants the minority shareholders' motion for a temporary restraining order. The majority shareholders are restrained from terminating one minority shareholder's executive employment agreement, expanding their company's board of directors, appointing a friendly consultant to the board or assigning responsibility for financial, corporate and legal decisions to one of the minority shareholders. The minority shareholders are likely to succeed in proving that the majority shareholders have breached a Stock Transfer Agreement and on their declaratory judgment claim. Public interest and balance-of-equities factors also favor granting the temporary restraining order.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: 0:24cv524, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Corporations, restraining Order, contract
J. Robart denies the computer hardware manufacturer's motion for a temporary restraining order in its complaint alleging that the IT services company refused to return $6.4 million-worth of Bitcoin after it failed to provide sufficient power and energy to the manufacturer's Bitcoin miners. The manufacturer does not show a likelihood of irreparable harm without a temporary restraining order because the evidence shows that the IT services company already agreed to return the manufacturer's high-powered computers, specifically on a "staggered monthly schedule extending through July of this year."
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Robart, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv319, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: restraining Order, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Males finds a lower court improperly dismissed a derma med practice's motion for a restraining order against a aesthetics physician. The aesthetics physician argued that the derma med practice wrongfully obtained an injunction against it. However, the practice sufficiently showed in court that the owner was diverting customers to his business, in violation of the parties' agreement, and used its confidential information to do so. Reversed.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Males, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-2335, Categories: restraining Order, contract, Injunction
J. Hurd declines to reconsider a prior court ruling dismissing a engineering consultancy firm’s requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against a former executive which seek to prevent him from taking any actions that would violate the restrictive covenants of his employment contract. The court ruled the former executive’s pending California lawsuit to determine his rights under the contract takes priority, and the firm fails to present any new evidence or law that would counteract that ruling.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Hurd, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: 1:24cv76, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: restraining Order, contract
J. Bashant denies an oncology practice's motion for a restraining order commanding the pharmaceutical maker to produce an experimental cancer drug for a 17-year-old patient who is dying. Although the patient could suffer without emergency relief, the patient is neither the plaintiff seeking preliminary relief nor a party to the contract between the oncology practice and the pharmaceutical maker. The oncology practice has failed to show that it will suffer irreparable harm without emergency relief. The parties' contract does not require the drug maker to immediately manufacture a drug batch for human injection and the required ingredient is not commercially available.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Bashant, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv1458, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Health Care, restraining Order, contract