Sims v. Greene
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
160 F.2d 512 (1947)
Facts
David Sims (plaintiff) filed a complaint to obtain injunctive relief against Sherman Greene (defendant) in federal district court. Sims alleged that Greene was misrepresenting himself as the presiding bishop of the First Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church and attempting to function as the presiding bishop to the detriment of Sims, who was the actual presiding bishop. On December 2, 1946, the district court issued an order restraining Greene from interfering with Sims as presiding bishop. The original order was set to expire on December 22, 1946. The district court then extended the original order by 10 days, and then extended the order again with Greene’s consent to January 14, 1947. On December 24, 1946, Greene filed an answer, alleging that Sims had been defrocked and that Greene had been assigned as presiding bishop. On January 13, 1947, the district court extended the restraining order once more, this time without Greene’s consent. On January 17, 1947, Greene moved to dissolve the restraint. The district court directed Greene to withhold his motion. Greene appealed from the restraining order, arguing that the so-called temporary restraining order issued by the district court was in fact an illegal preliminary injunction issued without the required findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Biggs, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
