Moltan Co. v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not have the authority to enter the permanent injunction prior to trial or an evidentiary hearing.
• explaining that whether to require a bond is within the discretion of the court
• upholding the lower court’s decision not to require bond “because of the strength of [the prevailing party’s] case and the strong public interest involved”
• “According to the lower court, no security was needed because of the strength of Eagle-Picher’s case and the strong public interest involved. . . . [W]e conclude that the District Court did not err . . . .”
• explaining procedure generally for resolution of overlapping equitable and legal issues
• finding no bond is required when strong public interest is involved

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).