Opinion
No. 5-217 / 04-0678
Filed April 28, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.
Defendant-appellant appeals the district court's issuance of a temporary injunction against him and plaintiff-appellees/cross-appellants appeal the district court's denial of their request for a permanent injunction against defendant. AFFIRMED.
Dan Holman, Keokuk, appellant pro se.
Diane Kutzko, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Defendant-appellant, Dan Holman, appeals the district court's issuance of a temporary injunction against him. Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to grant the injunctive relief. The Emma Goldman Clinic, its executive director, Karen Kubby, and its medical director, Robert Kretzschmar (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Clinic"), plaintiff-appellees/cross-appellants, appeal the district court's denial of their request for a permanent injunction against defendant. The Clinic argues the evidence was sufficient to support issuance of the requested permanent injunction and the district court erred by not granting a permanent injunction. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
The Clinic sought injunctive relief against defendant. The Clinic is a provider of reproductive health services, including abortions, and defendant is an anti-abortion protester. The district court, after a hearing on the matter, issued a temporary injunction that prohibits defendant from being (1) any closer than across the street from the Clinic, (2) in an alley to the south of the Clinic, and (3) any closer than 100 feet from Ms. Kubby and Dr. Kretschmar and their residences. The district court ordered that the temporary injunction could be reviewed one year after issuance of the April 22, 2004 order, at the request of either party. Thus, the order is reviewable in the district court after April 22, 2005.
Defendant appeals the district court's grant of the temporary injunction. The Clinic cross-appeals the district court's denial of its request for a permanent injunction against defendant. We affirm.
II. ANALYSIS.
"A party requesting injunctive relief must establish `(1) an invasion or threatened invasion of a right, (2) substantial injury or damages will result unless an injunction is granted, and (3) no adequate legal remedy is available.'" Opat v. Ludeking, 666 N.W.2d 597, 603-04 (Iowa 2003) (citing Skow v. Goforth, 618 N.W.2d 275, 278 (Iowa 2000)).
A. Temporary Injunction.
Defendant claims the evidence was not sufficient to support issuance of the injunction.
Our supreme court has recently spoken with regard to a review of the issuance of a temporary injunction:
Generally, our standard of review for the issuance of injunctions is de novo. This de novo review is based upon the equitable jurisdiction of the court to issue injunctions. Yet, the decision to issue or refuse a temporary injunction rests largely within the sound discretion of the district court. We recognize a temporary injunction is a delicate matter, and the exercise of judicial power to issue or refuse a temporary injunction requires great caution, deliberation, and sound discretion. Thus, we will not generally interfere with the district court decision unless the discretion has been abused or the decision violates some principle of equity.
PIC USA v. North Carolina Farm Partnership, 672 N.W.2d 718, 722 (Iowa 2003) (citing Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co., 621 N.W.2d 178, 180-81 (Iowa 2001)) (emphasis added, quotation marks omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion or violate equitable principles by granting the Clinic's request for a temporary injunction. We affirm issuance of the temporary injunction.
B. Permanent Injunction.
The Clinic appeals the district court's denial of its request for a permanent injunction against defendant.
We engage in de novo review of the district court's decision regarding the requested permanent injunction. Opat, 666 N.W.2d at 603 (citing Matlock v. Weets, 531 N.W.2d 118, 121 (Iowa 1995)). Although the district court's factual findings are not binding, we give weight to the court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. Id.
Giving proper deference to the district court's factual findings, we determine the district court appropriately denied the Clinic's request for a permanent injunction. Taxes are assessed one half to each party.