Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, Civ. A. No. 3-1303.
| Decision Date | 23 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3-1303. |
| Citation | 249 F. Supp. 19 |
| Parties | INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Grover Hartt, Jr., Edwin Tobolowsky, Tobolowsky, Hartt, Schlinger & Blalock, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs.
N. Alex Bickley, City Atty. of Dallas, Ted P. MacMaster, Asst. City Atty., Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
This matter came on for hearing on the application of the Plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction and the parties by stipulation having agreed that this application would be considered for a permanent injunction and the Court having considered the pleadings on file and having heard the evidence and argument of counsel, and having been fully advised in the premises of all particulars, does make and enter the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Where appropriate, certain of the findings and conclusions contained in Interstate Circuit, Inc., et al. v. City of Dallas, CA-3-1006, 247 F.Supp. 906 (N.D.Tex., Nov. 9, 1965), have been incorporated herein.
Plaintiff, Interstate Circuit, Inc., is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Texas, with its principal place of business in Dallas, authorized to exhibit motion pictures. It operates the following theatres in the City of Dallas: Majestic Theatre, 1925 Elm Street; Palace Theatre, 1623 Elm Street; Tower Theatre, 1905 Elm Street; Esquire Theatre, 3419 Oak Lawn; Inwood Theatre, Lovers Lane and Inwood Road; Circle Theatre, 2711 Storey Lane; Forest Theatre, 1918 Forest Avenue; Wilshire Theatre, Skillman and Mockingbird Lane; and Lakewood Theatre, 1825 Abrams Road.
Plaintiff Rowley United Theatres, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in Texas, with its principal place of business in Dallas, authorized to exhibit motion pictures. It operates the following theatres in the City of Dallas: Jefferson Drive-In Theatre, 4506 West Jefferson; Town and Country Drive-In Theatre, Forest Lane and Plano Road; Lone Star Drive-In Theatre, 4600 Lawnview; Hampton Road Drive-In Theatre, 2833 South Hampton; Wynnewood Theatre, 275 Wynnewood Village; Vogue Theatre, 2010 West Jefferson; and Texas Theatre, 231 West Jefferson.
Plaintiff Big Tex Theatres, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, authorized to exhibit motion pictures. It operates the following theatres in the City of Dallas: Granada Theatre, 3524 Greenville Avenue; Kiest Boulevard Drive-In Theatre; Crest Theatre, 2603 South Lancaster; and Avenue Theatre, 4923 Columbia.
Plaintiff Stanley Warner Texas, Inc., is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Texas with its principal place of business in Dallas and is authorized to exhibit motion pictures. It operates the following theatres in the City of Dallas: Chalk Hill Drive-In Theatre, 4501 West Davis; Buckner Drive-In Theatre, 3311 North Buckner Boulevard; and Denton Road Drive-In Theatre, 11325 Harry Hines Boulevard.
Plaintiff Tivoli Realty, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas and is authorized to exhibit motion pictures. It operates the Delman Theatre, 3319 Raleigh Street.
Plaintiff Brooks Theatre, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas, and is authorized to exhibit motion pictures. It operates the South Loop Theatre, 3016 East Ledbetter Drive.
Plaintiff Trans-Texas Theatre, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas and is authorized to exhibit motion pictures. It operates the Capri Theatre, 1913 Elm Street.
Plaintiff Arcadia Theatre, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas and is authorized to exhibit motion pictures. It operates the Arcadia Theatre at 2005 Greenville Avenue.
Plaintiff Big "D" Theatre Company, Dallas, Texas, operates the Big "D" Drive-In Theatre, 6123 Harry Hines Boulevard.
Plaintiff Frank Lucchese, doing business as Llaw Enterprise Company, exhibits motion pictures. He operates the State Theatre, 3217 Thomas Avenue, City of Dallas.
Plaintiff General Cinema Corporation is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Texas. It operates the following theatres in the City of Dallas: Cinema North Park I, and Cinema North Park II.
And Plaintiff Academy Theatres, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas. It operates the Festival Theatre, 3104 Maple Avenue in the City of Dallas.
Defendant, City of Dallas, is a home rule city. On November 22, 1965 Ordinance No. 11,284 was enacted in the form attached as Appendix "A" hereto after the Council heard testimony on the subject. On December 6, 1965 Ordinance No. 11,298 was enacted amending Ordinance No. 11,284 in the form attached as Appendix "B". All subsequent references will be to Ordinance No. 11,284, as amended.
The Plaintiffs claim relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of exhibiting commercial motion pictures in their respective theatres. In each theatre there is a large investment in personal property, projection equipment, and related accessories.
Plaintiffs exhibit commercial talking motion pictures. These pictures are generally made in California, if of domestic manufacture, or they are made in foreign countries and imported through a port of entry of the United States Customs Office. The positive prints of said commercial motion pictures pass freely in interstate commerce in and out of the State of Texas. By the owners of the copyright of such motion pictures, the motion pictures are licensed for exhibition to the respective Plaintiffs, at one or more of the theatres operated by the Plaintiffs according to the terms of a particular license agreement. At all times the copyright ownership and the title of the motion picture remain in the producer or the distributor, and none of the prints are owned by the Plaintiffs. They have no rights except by virtue of the license agreement mentioned above.
A large portion of the motion pictures released for exhibition in the City of Dallas are available for screening and for showing 30 days or more prior to their initial exhibition. Others are generally available for screening in the City of Dallas by prior arrangement.
Section 46 A-7 entitled "Judicial Review", in case of non-acceptance of the Board's classification, requires the Board to take steps to obtain a judicial review of the Order of the Board, provides a timetable for Court action by the Board, and requires the Board to waive notice of certain court proceedings.
District Courts in Dallas County, Texas have made it a practice to give preferential settings to cases in which the City of Dallas is a party, particularly those involving the public welfare.
The Appellate Courts of Texas have likewise made it a practice to advance cases involving the public welfare and the need for immediate action.
In cases where the exhibitor-defendant loses before the Board, in the District Court, and in the Court of Civil Appeals, under the timetable provided by the Ordinance in question and under the customary procedure in the Texas Courts, a final decision in the Supreme Court of Texas could be obtained in less than thirty-five days.
The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The powers of the City of Dallas derive from Article 11, Section 5, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann. St. and are plenary, subject to the limitation that its charter and ordinances shall contain nothing inconsistent with the State or Federal Constitution or the general laws enacted by the Legislature. Janus Films, Inc. v. City of Fort Worth, 354 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ of error refused per curiam, 163 Tex. 616, 358 S.W.2d 589 (1962).
Article 527 of the Penal Code of the State of Texas prohibiting obscene pictures but excluding from its provisions motion pictures produced or manufactured as commercial motion pictures which (1) have the seal under the Production Code of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., or (2) legally move in interstate commerce under Federal law, or (3) are legally imported from foreign countries into the United States and have passed the Customs Office of the United States Government at any port of entry, leaves the field of regulation of such pictures excluded from Article 527 to the City. Janus Films, Inc. v. City of Fort Worth, supra.
Since some commercial motion pictures are excluded from Article 527 of the Penal Code of the State of Texas, as set out in the above conclusion, the power to regulate such pictures is delegated to the City of Dallas and are subject to regulation by the City. Janus Films, Inc. v. City of Fort Worth, supra.
Recognizing the legitimate and indeed exigent interest of the State and localities throughout the nation in the dissemination of material deemed harmful to children, the power given to the Dallas Motion Picture Classification Board established by Ordinance 11,284 of the City of Dallas to classify films (1) "suitable for young persons" or (2) "not suitable for young persons" is reasonable in order to prevent the incitement or encouragement of crime, delinquency, or sexual promiscuity on the part of young persons. Jacobellis v. State of Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 195, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964); In re Louisiana News Co. v. Dayries, 187 F.Supp. 241, 247-248 (E.D.La.1960); State v. Settle, 90 R.I. 195, 156 A.2d 921 (1959).
It is not the function of the Court to debate the wisdom of a legislative determination that certain films can cause a moral deterioration in the young and a resultant tendency towards juvenile delinquency, where the conclusion of the legislative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Interstate Circuit, Inc v. City of Dallas United Artists Corporation v. City of Dallas, s. 56
-
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas
...of such matters to the average young person, and is utterly without redeeming social importance." Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, N.D. Texas 1965, 249 F.Supp. 19, 24. The procedure for review of the Board's classifications was found to be sufficient to insure the exhibitors' rig......
-
Alexander v. City of St. Paul
...to the court, was that it contained no assurance that only obscene movies would be banned. Accord, Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 249 F.Supp. 19 (N.D.Tex.1965). See, also, Village Books, Inc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Appeals & Review, 296 A.2d 613 (D.C.App.1972); City of ......
-
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas
...46A--6 of the Ordinance is unconstitutional, the rest of the Ordinance is not violative of the Constitution. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, D.C., 249 F.Supp. 19. Appended to the opinion is Appendix A--a reproduction in full of the Ordinance. The above judgment is now pending on......