Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Ash v. Cort

Ash v. Cort, 471 F.2d 811 (3d Cir. 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-01-05
Topic
bankruptcy

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a denial of a request for preliminary relief seeking to enjoin Bethlehem Steel from furnishing funds for the publication and dissemination of copies of a speech made by the corporation’s president. Appellant alleged that this practice offended 18 U.S. *812C. §§ 591, 610, governing the conduct of federal elections and political activities. We affirm the denial of the request for a preliminary injunction. Our holding is narrowly limited. We affirm solely because we view as not clearly erroneous the district court’s finding, 350 F.Supp. 227, that appellant would not be irreparably harmed by the denial of his request.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ash v. Cort. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
ASH v. CORT,471 F.2d 811(3rd Cir. 1973)
RICHARD A. ASH, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, AND ON BEHALF OF BETHLEHEM STEEL
CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. STEWART S. CORT, CHAIRMAN, ET AL., ALL BEING
DIRECTORS OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS,
AND
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, NOMINAL DEFENDANT.
No. 72-1984.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued December 15, 1972.
Decided January 5, 1973.
Cletus P. Lyman, Lyman Ash, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Edwin P. Rome, Jerome R. Richter, William H. Roberts, Blank, Rome, Klaus Comisky, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ALDISERT and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
[1] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
[2] This is an appeal from a denial of a request for preliminary relief seeking to enjoin Bethlehem Steel from furnishing funds for the publication and dissemination of copies of a speech made by the corporation's president. Appellant alleged that this practice offended 18 U.S.C.Page 812§§ 591, 610, governing the conduct of federal elections and political activities. We affirm the denial of the request for a preliminary injunction. Our holding is narrowly limited. We affirm solely because we view as not clearly erroneous the district court's finding,350 F. Supp. 227, that appellant would not be irreparably harmed by the denial of his request.

[3] Although the court reached other legal considerations which facially would seem to preclude appellant from proceeding to final hearing, we were assured at oral argument by counsel for appellees that he considered those conclusions to have been preliminary only and limited to the context of the request for preliminary relief. He conceded that appellant would be free to present anew his original contentions in the district court as the case proceeds to final adjudication. We therefore conclude that appellant is not foreclosed from reasserting at final hearing his contentions of standing and statutory construction of 18 U.S.C. §§ 591, 610 and, thus, do not meet these questions nor the issue of mootness.

[4] The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.Page 1137