Rogers Group, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, Ark.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26202
8th Cir.2010Background
- Rogers Group operates a limestone quarry located just outside but within one mile of Fayetteville’s corporate limits.
- The Quarry is outside the City’s planning/zoning authority and operates under state permits and county zoning as a preexisting, nonconforming use.
- In 2009 the City pursued regulation/licensing of quarries near the City, responding to complaints about noise and vibration.
- Ordinance No. 5280 was enacted to license and regulate quarries within the City or within one mile beyond the limits, including hours, blasting, and safety measures.
- Rogers Group sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Ordinance; the district court issued the injunction, and the City appeals.
- The district court held Rogers Group likely to succeed on the merits and found irreparable harm from enforcing the Ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City had authority to regulate the Quarry beyond its corporate limits | Rogers Group asserts no statutory basis to regulate quarries one mile outside the City. | City relies on Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-103(1) to abate nuisances beyond limits and upholds broad authority. | No, the City lacks authority absent a judicial nuisance determination. |
| Whether Rogers Group would suffer irreparable harm absent injunction | Enforcement would disrupt expansion, bidding on large projects, and customer goodwill cannot be fully remedied by monetary damages. | Harm is speculative; some restrictions are severable; ongoing operations could continue otherwise. | Yes, irreparable harm shown due to potential loss of goodwill and inability to expand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions; deference to district court)
- Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 564 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for injunction review)
- Med. Shoppe Int'l, Inc. v. S.B.S. Pill Dr., Inc., 336 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2003) (loss of goodwill can establish irreparable harm)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC, 563 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm analysis and discretion in injunctions)
- Hackler v. City of Fort Smith, 377 S.W.2d 875 (Ark. 1964) (quarry blasting not per se nuisance; regulatory authority limits)
- City of Arkadelphia v. Clark, 11 S.W. 957 (1889) (nuisance determination is judicially fact-specific)
- Phillips v. Town of Oak Grove, 968 S.W.2d 600 (1998) (municipalities regulate within limits under police power)
- Ward v. City of Little Rock, 41 Ark. 526 (1883) (abate nuisance authority limitations beyond limits)