Opinion ID: 2276751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The District's Zoning Laws

Text: One final issue needs to be addressed regarding the preliminary injunction. The District argues that the trial court enjoined it from enforcing its zoning laws against ETW. However, nothing in the July 7, 1995, or September 27, 1996, orders prevents the District from enforcing its zoning laws. In fact, in its main brief, the District stated in a footnote: It is not clear that the order was intended to apply to zoning enforcement. Moreover, in its responsive and reply brief, in a footnote, the District cited Super. Ct. Civ. R. 65 which provides, in pertinent part, that: Every order granting an injunction shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained, and is binding only upon the parties.... Since the District's zoning laws are not mentioned in the July 7 and September 27 orders, they may not be read to preclude the District's enforcement of its zoning laws. Based upon our analysis, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by modifying and extending the July 7, 1995 temporary restraining order.