The General Assembly finds that a procedure that allows a plaintiff to obtain sweeping injunctive relief without giving to each defendant notice of and a hearing based wholly or partly on examination and cross-examination of witnesses in open court, rather than on affidavits alone, is peculiarly subject to abuse in later litigation because:
(1) injunctive relief necessarily alters, rather than maintains, the status quo;
(2) determination of issues of veracity and of probability of fact from affidavits of the opposing parties that are contradictory and, under the circumstances, untrustworthy rather than from oral examination in open court is subject to grave error;
(3) erroneous issuance of injunctive relief usually is irreparable to the defendant; and
(4) delay incident to appeals frequently makes ultimate correction of error unavailing in a particular case.
The General Assembly finds that a procedure that allows a plaintiff to obtain sweeping injunctive relief without giving to each defendant notice of and a hearing based wholly or partly on examination and cross-examination of witnesses in open court, rather than on affidavits alone, is peculiarly subject to abuse in later litigation because:
(1) injunctive relief necessarily alters, rather than maintains, the status quo;
(2) determination of issues of veracity and of probability of fact from affidavits of the opposing parties that are contradictory and, under the circumstances, untrustworthy rather than from oral examination in open court is subject to grave error;
(3) erroneous issuance of injunctive relief usually is irreparable to the defendant; and
(4) delay incident to appeals frequently makes ultimate correction of error unavailing in a particular case.
The General Assembly finds that a procedure that allows a plaintiff to obtain sweeping injunctive relief without giving to each defendant notice of and a hearing based wholly or partly on examination and cross-examination of witnesses in open court, rather than on affidavits alone, is peculiarly subject to abuse in later litigation because:
(1) injunctive relief necessarily alters, rather than maintains, the status quo;
(2) determination of issues of veracity and of probability of fact from affidavits of the opposing parties that are contradictory and, under the circumstances, untrustworthy rather than from oral examination in open court is subject to grave error;
(3) erroneous issuance of injunctive relief usually is irreparable to the defendant; and
(4) delay incident to appeals frequently makes ultimate correction of error unavailing in a particular case.
