Frejlach v. Butler
Decision Date | 10 April 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77-1845,77-1845 |
Citation | Frejlach v. Butler, 573 F.2d 1026 (8th Cir. 1978) |
Parties | Marvin FREJLACH, d/b/a the Payne Reliever, et al., Appellants, v. Rosalie BUTLER, Individually and in her capacity as councilperson of the City of St. Paul, et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jerrold M. Hartke, South St. Paul, Minn., for appellants.
Philip B. Byrne, Deputy City Atty., St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
Patsy Reinard, Legal Counsel, Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, and Ronald D. B. Tigue, Volunteer Attorney, Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, Minneapolis, Minn., for amicus curiae, Minnesota Civil Liberties Union.
Before BRIGHT and HENLEY, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, *Senior District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.Expressing no opinion concerning the merits of the case, we affirm.
In March of 1973, following the decision in California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 93 S.Ct. 390, 34 L.Ed.2d 342(1972), the City of Saint Paul amended the liquor control provisions in its Legislative Code.As amended by OrdinanceNo. 15343, § 308.23(11)(e) of the Code permitted the display of the naked body in establishments selling liquor by the drink, so long as the person's pubic hair, anus and genitals were "covered with transparent or opaque clothing,"(italics ours).This provision controlled "adult" entertainment establishments in St. Paul until the adoption of OrdinanceNo. 16139 in July, 1977.
OrdinanceNo. 16139 removed the permissive use of transparent coverings and prohibited the display of the pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals or female breast in intoxicating liquor establishments.Plaintiffs, operators of establishments purveying sexually oriented entertainment, filed this action against the City of Saint Paul and various city officials, seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new ordinance.The District Court1 denied relief, 2 finding no showing that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury, and no substantial likelihood that plaintiffs would prevail on the merits.Appeal was taken to this court.
The traditional requirements for the issuance of a preliminary injunction have been stated by us in numerous cases to be a showing of
1) Substantial probability of success at trial by the moving party, and
2) Irreparable injury to the moving party absent such issuance.
American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 551 F.2d 749, 751(8th Cir.1977).3
We employ a narrow scope of review of a district court decision on a preliminary injunction request: "an appellate court can reverse only if it finds an abuse of discretion."Penn v. Cleburne County Hosp., 566 F.2d 1179(8th Cir.1977)(per curiam).See also, Missouri Portland Cement Co. v. H. K. Porter Co., 535 F.2d 388(8th Cir.1976).
The District Court examined both of the above requirements in detail.The fundamental showing as to irreparable harm, the sine qua non for all injunctive relief, was not convincing.In the first place, there was no showing that the income of the plaintiffs would suffer, and to what degree, if the nude dancers were required to adopt the opaque coverings required by the ordinance.Moreover, although the verified complaint indicated that the three plaintiffs had expended $320,000 in reliance on the prior ordinance of 1973, the purpose therefor was not made clear, nor was it shown how the expenditures related to the 1977 ordinance.The showings made are far from the clear proofs required of irreparable harm, and we agree with the trial court that the plaintiffs have not met their burden that they will suffer irreparable harm and that they have no adequate remedy at law if their motion for injunctive relief is denied.4We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Under the view we have taken of the case there is no need to rule on the additional issues raised.
Affirmed.
*TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
1The Honorable Miles W. Lord, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
2The District Court initially issued an ex parte order temporarily restraining enforcement of the new ordinance.After a hearing concerning the issuance of a...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Roberts v. Van Buren Public Schools, 83-1457
...a showing is alone sufficient ground for denying the preliminary injunction. Id. at 114 n. 9 (citing Rittmiller v. Blex Oil, Inc., 624 F.2d 857, 861 (8th Cir.1980);
Frejlach v. Butler, 573 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 4 (8th Cir.1978)). In the instant case, the basis of appellants' complaint is the loss of their jobs and it is this injury which appellants seek to avoid through their request for preliminary injunctive relief. Should appellants prevail on the merits of their... -
Barnhorst v. Mo. State High Sch. Activities Ass'n
...under the "hardship" provision of MSHSAA's constitution; the Board of Control, however, concluded that plaintiff's case was not one of hardship warranting the suspension of the rule. See FF 8, 9 & 16. 5 The Eighth Circuit previously had noted that a "showing of ... irreparable harm ... is the sine qua non for all injunctive relief."
Frejlach v. Butler, 573 F.2d 1026, 1027 & n. 4 (8th Cir. 1978). 6 The suspension of the transfer rule's ineligibility bar would not leave MSHSAA "unarmed"... -
Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.
...Express, Inc. v. Rundel, 597 F.2d 125, 127 (8th Cir. 1979); Dakota Wholesale Liquor, Inc. v. Minnesota, 584 F.2d 847, 849 (8th Cir. 1978); Modern Controls, Inc. v. Andreadkis, 578 F.2d 1264, 1267 n.4 (8th Cir. 1978);
Frejlach v. Butler, 573 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.4 (8th Cir. 1978).5 The controlling reason for the existence of the judicial power to issue a temporary injunction is that the court may thereby prevent such a change in the relations and conditions of persons697 (8th Cir. 1948).9 This court previously noted that under any test the movant is required to show the threat of irreparable harm. Rittmiller v. Blex Oil, Inc., 624 F.2d 857, at 861 (8th Cir. 1980); Frejlach v. Butler, 573 F.2d 1026, at 1027 n.4 (8th Cir. 1978). Thus, the absence of a finding of irreparable injury is alone sufficient ground for vacating the preliminary injunction.1 District Judge John W. Oliver recently summarized the extent of the confusion in his... -
City of S. Miami v. Desantis
...The injury must be ‘neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.’ An injury is ‘irreparable only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies." NE Fla. CAGC of Am. , 896 F.2d at 1285 (quoting
Frejlach v. Butler , 573 F.2d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 1978); Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger , 888 F.2d 969, 973 (2d Cir. 1989) ). Courts have stated that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo when, absent the preservation of the status...