Docstoc

Humble Oil_Refining v. Harang

Document Sample
Humble Oil_Refining v. Harang Powered By Docstoc
					Humble Oil & Refining v. Harang, 262 F. Supp. 39, 1966 Issue Reasoning
The necessity of an injunction must be demonstrated It is apparent that П may be irreparably injured if documents necessary to prove its claim are destroyed. Rule 37 Civ Pro: No penalty if Δ should destroy the records sought before an order for their production can be obtained. П offered no proof that there was an imminent threat of destruction or concealment. Not sufficient to say “Issue it because it won’t hurt the other party.”

233

Rule
An injunction should issue only to prevent irreparable injury. o Not justified merely b/c it, an event might occur. Party seeking an injunction must show: o Potential irreparable injury o Real danger that the acts to be enjoined will occur o There is no other remedy available o Under these circs, the court should exercise its direction to afford the unusual relief of an injunction. Lack of hardship not of itself sufficient for granting an injunction.

Facts
An EE of Humble, passed proprietary co. info to Harang who would that info to take leases before Humble could. Humble sought an injunction to prevent the Δs from destroying documents relating to these transactions. o The Δ testified that it had all the records sought and had no intention of destroying them.

Held П argues Δ argues

Denied. No hardship to Δ if an injunction was issued.

Marshall v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 554 F.2d 730, 1977 Issue Reasoning
Held П argues Δ argues

241

Rule
o

Facts


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:147
posted:5/17/2009
language:English
pages:2