Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Sanders v. De Lucia

379 F.2d 550

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1967-06-20
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: The order of the district court denying plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction is affirmed. It is clear that the issuance of the requested injunction would result in greater harm to the defendants than the harm which plaintiff would suffer by reason of failure to issue the injunction. See Schenker v. E. I.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sanders v. De Lucia. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

SANDERS v. DE LUCIA,379 F.2d 550(2nd Cir. 1967)

Edgar M. SANDERS, as General Secretary Treasurer of Journeymen Barbers,

Hairdressers, Cosmetologists and Proprietors International Union of

America, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel DE LUCIA and Adolph

Rosenbaum, individually and as President and Secretary Treasurer,

respectively of Barbers, Hairdressers and Beauty Culturists Union,

Independent, Local 1; Anthony Franco and Joseph Visconti, individually and

as President and Secretary Treasurer, respectively of Barbers,

Hairstylists and Beauty Culturists Union, Independent, Local 2; Louis

Palude and George Pelletiere, individually and as President and Secretary

Treasurer, respectively of Barbers, Hairstylists and Beauty Culturists

Union, Independent, Local 3; and John Restivo and Ben Carbone,

individually and as President and Secretary Treasurer, respectively of

Barbers, Hairstylists and Beauty Culturists Union, Independent, Local 4,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 503, Docket 31371.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued June 14, 1967.

Decided June 20, 1967.

Benjamin Wyle, New York City, for appellant.

Belle Harper, New York City (I. Philip Sipser and Sipser, Weinstock Weinmann, New York City, on the brief), for appellees.

Before HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and McLEAN, District Judge.^fn*

PER CURIAM:

The order of the district court denying plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction is affirmed. It is clear that the issuance of the requested injunction would result in greater harm to the defendants than the harm which plaintiff would suffer by reason of failure to issue the injunction. See Schenker v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Co.,304 F.2d 880(2d Cir. 1962); Nalco Chemical Co. v. Hall,347 F.2d 90(5th Cir. 1965).Page 551

Of the Southern District of New York sitting by designation. ↩