From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

THOMPSON ET AL. v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMM. OF UTAH ET AL

Supreme Court of Utah
Dec 10, 1935
52 P.2d 463 (Utah 1935)

Opinion

No. 5764.

Decided December 10, 1935.

1. INJUNCTION. Injunction which is so vague and uncertain in its terms that parties restrained are not able to determine what they are restrained from doing can be dissolved. 2. INJUNCTION. Application for dissolution of injunction on ground that injunction is so vague that parties restrained are not able to determine what they are restrained from doing should be made to court issuing injunction. 3. PROHIBITION. Supreme Court would not issue writ of prohibition arresting injunction proceeding on ground that district court issuing injunction was without jurisdiction because injunction orders were uncertain, where no showing was made that adequate relief could not be obtained in district court which had jurisdiction to modify or dissolve injunction orders.

Original proceeding for writ of prohibition by Charles Thompson and others against the Liquor Control Commission of Utah and others.

WRIT DENIED.

Shirley P. Jones, H.A. Rich, and E.A. Rogers, all of Salt Lake City, Arthur Woolley, of Ogden, and Knox Patterson, of Price, for plaintiffs.

H.D. Moyle, E.M. Bagley, and Paul H. Ray, all of Salt Lake City, for defendants.


The plaintiffs seek a writ of prohibition against the defendants arising out of injunctions issued out of the district court of the Third judicial district of the state of Utah at the instance of the liquor control commission of Utah. The claimed ground is that the court was without jurisdiction and that there is not an adequate remedy at law. These grounds are asserted not because of lack of jurisdiction of the subject-matter or failure to sufficiently state facts in the complaints filed; but because the injunctive orders issued are too broad in their terms and are indefinite and uncertain in certain matters that it is maintained should be made definite and specific. "It is impossible to lay down a precise rule of universal application as to the degree of certainty required," except that it should be clear and certain in its terms. 32 C.J. 368. Some of the injunctive orders as set out in the petition may be subject to successful attack while not so as to others.

If an injunction is so vague and uncertain in its terms that the parties restrained or enjoined are not able to determine what they are restrained from doing, the injunction may be dissolved. Application therefor should be made to the court issuing the injunction. The court may modify or 1-3 dissolve the injunction or refuse to do so, depending upon the showing made. No application or motion to quash or modify the injunction or injunctions have been made to the district court. No appearances have been made therein. The jurisdiction and power is in the district court to hear and consider any matters relating to the various causes and defendants. The remedy by application, motion, or other procedure is open to be pursued in the district court.

No showing is made that the relief, if petitioners should be found entitled to any, would not be complete and adequate in the premises. The district court is vested with jurisdiction of the causes in so far as appears. Such being the case, the issuance of the writ should be denied. Such is the order.


Summaries of

THOMPSON ET AL. v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMM. OF UTAH ET AL

Supreme Court of Utah
Dec 10, 1935
52 P.2d 463 (Utah 1935)
Case details for

THOMPSON ET AL. v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMM. OF UTAH ET AL

Case Details

Full title:THOMPSON et al. v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION of UTAH et al

Court:Supreme Court of Utah

Date published: Dec 10, 1935

Citations

52 P.2d 463 (Utah 1935)
52 P.2d 463

Citing Cases

LIQUOR CONTROL COMM. v. McGILLIS ET AL

Utah Power Light Co. v. Richmond Irr. Co., 80 Utah 105, 13 P.2d 320; Riggins v. District Court of Salt Lake…

Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Sandy City

The source of the power to modify is of course the fact that an injunction often requires continuing…