James Turnell v. Centimark Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that injunction prohibiting solicitation of “prospective customers” was too broad because it was vague and contained no geographic limitation
• explaining that a TRO movant must show irreparable harm, inadequate remedies at law, and a likelihood of success on the merits
• recognizing that “if the movant makes the required threshold showing, then the court proceeds to the second phase” where it balances the “potential harms” to the parties and determines whether the granting or denying of injunc-tive relief is in the public interest
• \[W]e give substantial deference to the court's weighing of evidence and balancing of the various equitable factors.\
• a preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary equitable remedy that is available only when the movant shows clear need”
• discussing “blue penciling” under Pennsylvania law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).