In In re Prichard Estate, 169 Mich App 140, 149; 425 NW2d 744 (1988), a panel of the Court noted that "the word "wrongful," as used in the context of injunctions, has been considered by federal and state courts to mean the issuance of the injunction by a court in error or when it ought not to have been issued." The Court in Prichard went on to conclude that the court rule provides compensation to a party "for costs and damages sustained as a result of an injunction, which, based on the determination made on the merits of the underlying controversy between the parties, should not have been issued at all." Id. at 151. Although the Court in Prichard concluded that the verdict in the underlying case was evidence of wrongful enjoinment, it did not limit the lower court's consideration to the verdict alone. It is clear from this Court's analysis of the issue that the trial court properly considered a number of principles in addition to the verdict in that case, including the definition of wrongfulness and the question whether the injunction ought to have been issued. Id. at 149-151.