« Law - Blakely waiver? | Main | Indiana Decisions - One Court of Appeals Opinion Today »

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Two 7th Circuit Opinions Today

Eric Joelner, Fish, Inc. dba XXXtreme Entertainment, Free Speech, Inc. and First Amendment, Inc. v. Village Washington Park, Ill. (SD Ill.)

Before COFFEY, RIPPLE, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
KANNE, Circuit Judge. * * * with a population of only 5,300 covering 2.5 square miles at the confluence of two interstate highways leading into St. Louis, Missouri, adult entertainment has been the industry of Washington Park. As of May 2003, there were four licensed, one unlicensed, and two newly licensed adult cabarets. Each licensed cabaret generates around $100,000 annually in licensing and other fees for the Village. And because the population of Washington Park decreased by more than 2,000 residents between 1990 and 2000, with a corresponding loss of about $300,000 a year in state funding, the income which the adult entertainment industry generates for the Village is critical. * * *

For the reasons set forth below, we find that the district court correctly refused to preliminarily enjoin the Village from enforcing the two ordinances, and we further find that the court appropriately granted the preliminary injunction requiring the Village to allow Joelner to continue to operate his bookstore business at 2226 Kingshighway. However, we also determine that the district court erred in granting the injunction requiring Joelner to pay the disputed fees and/or arrearages in order to continue operating his bookstore and requiring the Village to conduct a new hearing to consider Joelner’s cabaret license application for the 2226 Kingshighway location.

Guise, Carroll v. BWM Mortgage LLC (ND Ill.)
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and DIANE P. WOOD and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Chief Judge. The plaintiffs claim relief under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., alleging that the defendants engaged in unlawful lending practices in connection with a mortgage on their home. The district court dismissed their lawsuit on the pleadings and denied their motion for leave to file an amended complaint. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 4, 2004 12:16 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions