Such an interpretation would enervate, if not destroy entirely, the appeal process.
#AIRCALL COMMUNICATIONS TRIAL#
On April 16, 1980, the Illinois Commerce Commission (Commission) granted to Aircall Communications, Inc., defendant-appellee herein (Aircall), a certificate of public convenience and necessity to perform paging services in Coles County.Furthermore, Supreme Court Rule 1 (73 Ill.2d R.This interlocutory appeal followed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (73 Ill.2d R. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter and on June 2, 1981, entered an order sustaining Aircall's motion and denying injunctive relief. Aircall filed a motion to dismiss the request for preliminary injunction. During the pendency of the appeal to this court on May 15, 1981, Telephone filed a complaint in the circuit court of Coles County against Aircall seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Aircall from providing paging service in Coles County, and for damages.The implication is that Aircall was no menace to Telephone.
However, just before this remark he was comparing the number of customers and the charges of each of the parties, concluding that Aircall had fewer customers and higher charges. The trial judge stated that Telephone had shown no irreparable injury. App.3d 132, 345 N.E.2d 795.) It is difficult to determine which of these criteria were relied upon by the trial court in refusing the injunction. The moving party must show: (1) that he possesses a right which needs protection (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury without the protection (3) that there is no adequate remedy at law and (4) that he is likely to succeed on the merits. The requirements for the writ are well-known. 4 Next the standing of Telephone to obtain a preliminary injunction requires brief discussion.
0 kommentar(er)
