This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

This was a second shot at an appeal. See NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 112 F.3d 689 (3d Cir. 1997) in Rom Law for the facts of this case. In summary: P filed a complaint and an Order to Show Cause in federal district court, seeking a writ of replevin and temporary restraining order (TRO) against the goods it sold for consumption overseas that had refound their way back to the U.S. P argued that the goods were obtained by fraud and that it was likely to succeed in recovering title to the goods. The District Court granted P's request for a TRO and writ of replevin. After NutraSweet posted a $329,000 bond, the U.S. Marshals seized the Equal. Tek (D) learned that the goods had been seized, and intervened in this case to challenge the TRO. The District Court refused to lift the TRO. We instructed the District Court to vacate the TRO as to D because it had the effect of a preliminary injunction but had been entered without development of a preliminary injunction record and findings of fact. The District Court vacated the TRO but entertained argument concerning the propriety of a preliminary injunction. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction, prohibiting D, its agents, and those acting in concert with D from 'taking possession, control, or custody and/or marketing, selling, or otherwise distributing the shipments of Equal.' The Court increased the bond for P to $658,000. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.