Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas

247 F. Supp. 906, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9679
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Texas
DecidedNovember 9, 1965
DocketCiv. A. CA 3-1006
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 247 F. Supp. 906 (Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 247 F. Supp. 906, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9679 (N.D. Tex. 1965).

Opinion

HUGHES, District Judge.

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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I.

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: *908 Majestic Theatre, 1925 Elm Street; Palace Theatre, 1623 Elm Street; Tower Theatre, 1905 Elm Street; Esquire The-atre, 3419 Oak Lawn; Inwood Theatre, Lovers Lane and Inwood Road; Circle Theatre, 2711 Storey Lane; Forest The-atre, 1918 Forest Avenue; Wilshire The-atre, 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 The-atre, 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 The-atre; 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 The-atre, 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 Charles W. Weisenburg exhibits motion pictures in the City of Dallas. He operates the Kaufman Pike Drive-In Theatre, 7041 Second Avenue, City of Dallas.

Plaintiff Frank Lucchese, doing business as Llaw Enterprise Company, exhibits motion pictures. He operates State Theatre, 3217 Thomas Avenue, City of Dallas.

And 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.

II.

Defendant, City of Dallas, is a home rule city. On April 5, 1965, Ordinance No. 10,963 was enacted in the form attached as Exhibit “A” hereto after the Council heard testimony on the subject.

III.

The Plaintiffs claim relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

IV.

The Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of exhibiting commercial motion pic *909 tures in their respective theatres: In each theatre there is a large investment in personal property, projection equipment, and related accessories.

V.

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 Custom 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 thea-tres 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 remains 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.

VI.

Approximately twenty per cent (20%) of the motion pictures released for initial exhibition by the Plaintiff, Interstate Circuit, Inc., are not available for a preliminary screening in the City of Dallas more than forty-five days prior to the opening date of the film. Of the other pictures which are relased for first-run exhibition many of the screening prints have come to Dallas and move away from this distribution center so that the prints are not available for screening prior to exhibition except as a matter of chance or by prior arrangement.

VII.

At the time of a survey in August, 1965, Plaintiffs employed one hundred sixty nine (169) persons who were under eighteen years of age.

VIII.

The statutes of Texas and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, when applied to the Ordinance before the Court, do not provide for a speedy judicial review of the rights of the Plaintiffs sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the case of Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965).

IX.

The Court finds that the language of Section 46A-10 of the Ordinance relating to forfeiture and confiscation fails to provide adequate protection to the Plaintiffs and therefore would be null and void under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 F. Supp. 906, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interstate-circuit-inc-v-city-of-dallas-txnd-1965.