Opinion ID: 722554
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was Injunctive Relief Appropriate?

Text: 25 The City urges that the district court's conclusions that the Utility would have suffered irreparable harm and had no adequate legal remedy were clearly erroneous. The City asserts that the record contains no factual basis for such a conclusions. We disagree. The record reflects the following facts: (1) the Utility is indebted to the FmHA; (2) in the disputed areas the City has encroached on the Utility's service area; and, (3) as a result, the Utility would lose revenue exceeding $365,000 a year if the City's encroachment went unabated. The district court held (and we have now affirmed) that, as a legal and factual matter, the Utility had made service available to the disputed areas. In other words, unless the City is prevented from violating § 1926(b), the Utility will lose $365,000 in annual revenue. 26 Section 1926(b) does not create or specify a remedy for the enforcement of violations, but an injunction has been the principal tool employed by the courts with which to enforce the statute and prevent violations. 26 Given these circumstances, we hold that the record contains ample evidence to support the injunction. 27 27