Crane Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the moving party must demonstrate “the probability of irreparable harm if relief is not granted”
• finding that preliminary injunction cannot be sustained “where either or both of these prerequisites are absent”
• noting that “while there are exceptions, the instances in which a bond may not be required are so rare that the requirement is almost mandatory”
• explaining that “plaintiffs obviously would not be entitled to any double recovery were they to succeed under alternative section 12(2) and rule 10b-5 theories of liability”
• stating that “chilling effect” of bond “cannot justify excusing bond requirement”
• placing particular emphasis on “likelihood of success on the merits” and “irreparable harm” as necessary “prerequisites” to obtaining a preliminary injunction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).