Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Nemirow v. Kuhn
Citations: 133 Ill. App. 2d 604; 273 N.E.2d 532; 1971 Ill. App. LEXIS 1757Docket: No. 55592
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; July 19, 1971; Illinois; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made by Crown Coin Meter Company against a temporary injunction favoring plaintiff Albert Nemirow, who operates a coin-operated laundry service. Nemirow has the exclusive rights to install and service laundry machines in a specific apartment building under an agreement originally made with the building's owner in 1958, which includes a provision preventing the installation of competing machines during the agreement's term, expiring December 31, 1970. Nemirow acquired this agreement and the machines from Seymour Paul in 1965. After the building was sold to John Kuhn in 1966, Nemirow informed Kuhn of the existing agreement, which Kuhn accepted, including receiving semi-annual payments. However, in October 1969, Kuhn indicated that Crown was interested in installing its machines and later, Nemirow found Crown's machines installed in place of his on several occasions, leading to multiple disconnections and reconnections of the machines. Nemirow filed a lawsuit in February 1970, seeking both a temporary and permanent injunction against Crown and Kuhn to protect his exclusive rights and for damages. Additionally, it was revealed that Crown had a lease agreement with Kuhn for a different building, where Kuhn had an existing agreement with another laundry service. Crown confronted Kuhn regarding the Aleo agreement, leading Kuhn to request that Crown forfeit its rights to another building in exchange for premises at 7746-56 Haskins Street. Crown inquired about any prior written agreements for the Haskins property and was told there were none. On September 16, 1969, Kuhn signed an agreement with Crown for the Haskins premises, after which Crown installed its equipment. Subsequently, a series of disruptive connections and disconnections of the laundry equipment began. The trial judge issued a temporary injunction preventing Crown and Kuhn from interfering with the plaintiff's use of the laundry area at Haskins Street until further notice. Crown appealed this injunction, arguing it was an arbitrary exercise of equitable power because the agreement at Haskins was merely a license and the plaintiff did not meet the prerequisites for equitable jurisdiction. Crown also claimed the doctrine of laches barred the plaintiff’s request for relief. The court clarified that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to maintain the last uncontested status before the lawsuit, not to resolve the merits of the case. The trial court has broad discretion in issuing such injunctions, and the appellate review focuses on whether there was an abuse of that discretion. The plaintiff had operated the laundry business under an agreement with the property owner, and the distinction between a license and a lease was irrelevant to Crown's appeal since Crown has no standing under that agreement. The court concluded that the trial judge acted within discretion in issuing the injunction to prevent disruption of the plaintiff's business, allowing for the equitable determination of rights in the ongoing case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding no merit in Crown’s claims regarding equitable jurisdiction or laches.