1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.E.2d
  4. 248 S.E.2d
  5. 248 S.E.2d 345 (1978)
 

SCHULTZ v. INGRAM

No. 7726SC1073.

248 S.E.2d 345 (1978)

38 N.C. App. 422

Howard SCHULTZ and Associates of the Southeast, Inc. v. Joe William INGRAM, Jr.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

November 7, 1978.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Grier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage & Preston by Sydnor Thompson, Heloise C. Merrill and Francis O. Clarkson, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Tucker, Moon & Hodge by Robert B. Tucker, Jr., and John E. Hodge, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the clarifying order which sets forth the reasons for the preliminary injunction. Rule 65(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a preliminary injunction order "shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; [and] shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts enjoined." The clarifying order tracks the original...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases