Ash v. Cort, 72-1984.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1984.,72-1984. |
| Citation | 471 F.2d 811 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
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.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and ALDISERT and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
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. §§ 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.
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.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
45 26 Cort v. Ash 8212 1908
...it was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit only on the narrow ground that irreparable harm was not shown. 471 F.2d 811 (1973).5 After the affirmance on appeal, petitioners sought an order requiring respondent to post security for expenses as required by Pennsylvan......
-
Ash v. Cort
...holding only that the court's finding of no irreparable harm to plaintiff from denying the injunction was not clearly erroneous. 471 F.2d 811 (3d Cir. 1973). At that time, however, we noted that the question of mootness would have to be examined at a later point in these proceedings. Id. at......
-
Ash v. Cort
...opinion filed in 1973, this court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. 3 Ash v. Cort, 471 F.2d 811 (3d Cir. 1973). The district court subsequently granted defendant appellee's motion for summary judgment on grounds that no cause of action ha......
-
Flagstar Bank v. Walcott
...No. 2016-0022, 2017 WL 3083655, at *3 (D.V.I. July 19, 2017) (citing Ash v. Cort, 350 F.Supp. 227, 230 (E.D. Pa. 1972), aff'd, 471 F.2d 811 (3d Cir. 1973) (citing Indus. Elecs. Corp. v. Cline, 330 F.2d 482 (3d Cir. 1964)). The same is true for the ability to establish irreparable harm. Bebe......