Ckhs, Inc. v. Prospect Med Hldgs, Inc.

Summary

Justice Donohue dissents, arguing that the majority’s deferential standard for reviewing a prohibitory preliminary injunction improperly permits speculative, hypothetical testimony to satisfy the irreparable‑harm requirement. He maintains that Pennsylvania law demands concrete evidence of actual harm and that contractual stipulations cannot substitute for such proof. Accordingly, he concludes the injunction should not have been granted.