The Firm’s Litigation Group* is pleased to share a recent win in the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the matter of Herman v. Moss, No. 1429 WDA 2024, decided Oct. 2, 2025. While vacating an Order entered by the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas granting a permanent injunction, the Superior Court in Herman reinforced the procedural safeguards surrounding preliminary injunctive relief and while vacating the entry of an improper permanent injunction that terminated an easement. This ruling elaborates on the significant difference between the procedural rights of the parties, elements and burdens, as between preliminary and permanent injunctions.
Case Summary
- Dispute over a 50-foot private right-of-way in Neshannock Township, Lawrence County, granted decades ago and extending from a public roadway into subdivided lots.
- Hermans’ allegations: the Mosses trespassed while preparing the right-of-way for use by cutting trees, placing gravel, and redirecting water.
- Hermans’ position: denied the existence of the right-of-way, claimed resulting damages, filed a trespass action, and immediately sought preliminary injunctive relief.
- Trial court: initially entered an ex parte order granting the preliminary injunction.
- Full hearing on preliminary injunction: After multiple preliminary-injunction hearings spanning nearly two years, the trial court instead granted a broad permanent injunction, declaring the Mosses had no right, title, or interest in the 50-foot right-of-way and that any prior easement had been extinguished by Hermans’ adverse possession.
The Appeal – Motion to Quash
The Hermans sought to quash the appeal arguing that the Mosses failed to file post-verdict motions pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(c)(2), resulting in a waiver of all claims. The Superior Court disagreed, noting that here, no trial had yet occurred at all and that the underlying trespass action had yet to be litigated. The Superior Court then applied Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4), allowing an appeal as of right from, without post-trial motions, from an order that “grants or denies, modifies or refuses to modify, continues or refuses to continue, or dissolves or refuses to dissolve an injunction.” The Court denied the Hermans’ motion to quash.
The Appeal – Merits
On appeal, the Mosses effectively argued that the trial court had in reality not issued a preliminary injunction, but rather, had in fact entered a procedurally improper permanent injunction. The Mosses further argued that the trial court’s preliminary injunctive order was over broad and not narrowly tailored.
The Superior Court noted, and the record reflected, that the multiple days of hearings held by the trial court were procedurally only concerning preliminary relief — without a full trial on the merits or mutual stipulation to convert the proceedings to those for a permanent injunction. The Superior Court agreed with the Mosses, affirming that elements of a preliminary injunction are required to be met and that the purpose of such an injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent imminent and irreparable harm before the merits are decided. The Superior Court reiterated that, absent a stipulation of the parties, it is improper for a trial judge to treat a hearing on a preliminary injunction as a final hearing on the merits and as a basis for a final decree.
The Superior Court ‘s review of the record made clear the parties were litigating a preliminary injunction, not a permanent one, and found no stipulation by the parties to convert the preliminary injunction proceedings into one for permanent relief. The Court concluded the trial court erred by granting permanent injunctive relief on a preliminary injunction petition and cautioned the trial court, that should preliminary injunctive relief ultimately be granted on remand, that such relief should be narrowly tailored.
The Court vacated the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court’s order and remanded the matter back to that court for further proceedings consistent with the Superior Court’s Opinion.
Key Legal Takeaways
- Preliminary vs. Permanent Injunction: Courts cannot convert preliminary injunction hearings into permanent injunctions absent explicit consent by both parties.
- Rule 1531 Compliance: Preliminary injunctions must adhere to Pennsylvania’s civil procedure requirements.
- Elements Required: All elements of a preliminary injunction are required to be met by the movant, which includes that such an injunction be narrowly tailored.
- Differing Elements: Preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions have different required elements, and different purposes.
- Due Process Matters: Trial court rulings may be overturned if procedural safeguards are violated.
Why This Decision Matters
This decision by the Superior Court preserved the Mosses’ property rights and easement and paved the way for the proper use of the land served by the 50-foot right-of-way. The decision also cautions against over-reaching orders—especially converting a preliminary-injunction proceeding into permanent relief without the required due process. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that post-trial motions are not required following the entry of most injunction orders.
Have a Pennsylvania easement or injunction issue? Our attorneys can help protect your interests at every stage—from initial filing through appeal.
- Call: 215.540.2653
- Email: esmith@timoneyknox.com
- Request a Consultation
Eric B. Smith, Esquire, a partner at Timoney Knox, LLP, serves as Chair of the Firm’s Litigation Group and has been consistently recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Attorneys since 2005. His commercial and real estate litigation practice spans the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
*For the appeal of Herman v. Moss, No. 1429 WDA 2024: Lead Counsel: Eric B. Smith; Associate Counsel: Vincent R. Cocco, Matthew D. DeLeo.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What are the requirements for granting a preliminary injunction?
A: There are six required elements for the entry of a preliminary injunction. Those elements are: 1) that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages; 2) that greater injury would result from refusing an injunction than from granting it, and, concomitantly, that issuance of an injunction will not substantially harm other interested parties in the proceedings; 3) that a preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct; 4) that the activity it seeks to restrain is actionable, that its right to relief is clear, and that the wrong is manifest, or, in other words, must show that it is likely to prevail on the merits; 5) that the injunction it seeks is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and 6) that a preliminary injunction will not adversely affect the public interest. The burden to prove those elements is on the party who requested preliminary injunctive relief.
Q: What are the requirements for granting a permanent injunction?
A: A party seeking a permanent injunction must prove that 1) its right to relief is clear; 2) an injunction is necessary to avoid an injury where there is no adequate remedy at law, i.e., damages will not compensate for the injury; and 3) a greater injury will result from refusing rather than granting injunctive relief.
Q: Are post-trial motions required after entry of an injunction order?
A: Generally, no, however, whether to file post-trial motions in any case is an analysis that must be made on a case-by-case basis by an attorney. Potentially permanent issues of waiver and loss of appeal rights could result if an appeal is not perfected and pursued appropriately, including the filing of post-trial motions.
Q: Must a preliminary injunction be narrowly tailored?
A: Yes, a preliminary injunction must be narrowly tailored to abate the injury and crafted so as to be no broader than is necessary for the petitioner’s protection until the merits are decided.
