Oregon Statutes 662.080 – Hearing and findings of certain facts are prerequisites to injunction
No court, nor any judge thereof, shall have jurisdiction to issue a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except after hearing the testimony of witnesses in open court, with opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in opposition thereto, if offered, and except after findings of fact by the court, to the effect:
Terms Used In Oregon Statutes 662.080
- Complaint: A written statement by the plaintiff stating the wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant.
- Injunction: An order of the court prohibiting (or compelling) the performance of a specific act to prevent irreparable damage or injury.
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- Oath: A promise to tell the truth.
- Temporary restraining order: Prohibits a person from an action that is likely to cause irreparable harm. This differs from an injunction in that it may be granted immediately, without notice to the opposing party, and without a hearing. It is intended to last only until a hearing can be held.
- Testimony: Evidence presented orally by witnesses during trials or before grand juries.
(1) That unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained, or have been committed and will be continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat or unlawful act excepting against the persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof.
(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will follow.
(3) That as to each item of relief granted greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief.
(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law.
(5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.