Court Opinion

ID: 9525362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:02:35.857817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:24.534973
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. This appeal should be dismissed as moot.
At the outset, I think it appropriate to voice my disagreement with the conclusion of the majority that the commercial fishermen do not have a cognizable legal interest so as to permit a challenge to the validity or reasonableness of the Department’s emergency regulation. Presumably, the majority would not permit these plaintiffs to challenge the regulation even if it were patently unconstitutional. I conclude otherwise.
To be sure, the licenses under which the commercial fishermen operate are revocable and the use of such licenses a privilege. Nevertheless, those licenses confer upon the holder a property interest, albeit perhaps a qualified or limited interest. Lake County Beverage Co. v. 21st Amendment, Inc. (1982) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 1008. Such interest is sufficient to authorize a challenge to an arguably unreasonable regulation.
As I read the licensing statute, I.C. 14-2-7-12 (West’s Ann.Code 1986 Supp.), the commercial licenses here involved may be revoked only for violation of the terms of the license, the Fish and Wildlife Act, or of an order or rule issued and promulgated under the Act. No such violation is involved here. Accordingly, it would seem that a holding of Lake County Beverage Co. v. 21st Amendment, Inc., supra, is *343applicable. Although dealing with a holder of a liquor license, our court, quoting from Midwest Beverage Co. v. Gates (N.D.Ind.1945) 61 F.Supp. 688, stated:
“ ‘On the other hand the use of the permit, once granted, has the elements of property irrespective of what the legislature may declare about the permit itself, and except for the omnipresent and unlimited power of the state to revoke or modify the terms of the permit in the interest of the public welfare, the use of such permit, if not the permit itself, is property within the meaning of the due process clause of the Federal Constitution.’ ” 441 N.E.2d at 1011.
Having set forth my disagreement with the position taken by my colleagues as to “standing,” I must now set forth my agreement with a basic premise underlying the decision. In the matter before us, the regulation seems on its face to be a reasonable exercise of the police power of the State. I cannot, however, deduce from that conclusion that the trial court abused its wide discretion in granting the temporary injunction and thereby maintaining the status quo for the extremely brief period involved.
In granting the temporary injunction, the trial court specifically stated that the determination was “not a final adjudication of the case on the merits.” Record at 110. That statement merely reflects long standing applicable case law. Our cases, including the majority decision here, have repeatedly reiterated the principle stated in The Indiana Annual Conference Corp. v. Lemon (1956) 235 Ind. 163, 131 N.E.2d 780:
“In our determination of whether or not the trial court committed any error in granting the temporary injunction in this case, the appellee (the plaintiff below) need only show a prima facie case for an injunction and that injury to him would be certain and irreparable if the application be denied and that injury to the defendant below if the temporary injunction be granted, may be adequately indemnified by bond. It is not necessary that a case should be made that would entitle the plaintiff to relief in all events. It is necessary only that the pleadings and evidence be such that it makes out a case for a proper investigation in equity and that the status quo be maintained pending such trial on the merits. There must be a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court before the court on appeal may interfere.” 235 Ind. at 167, 131 N.E.2d 780.
It is clear, therefore, that the nature of the decision and the considerations essential to it are different at the preliminary injunction stage than at the time of final adjudication. In this connection it is important to note that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo until a final determination can be made. The Indiana Annual Conference Corp. v. Lemon, supra; Riggin v. Board of Trustees of Ball State Univ. (1986) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 489 N.E.2d 616, 630 trans. denied, 499 N.E.2d 243 (Shepard and Dickson, JJ. dissenting); Rees v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. (1978) 2d Dist., 176 Ind.App. 597, 377 N.E.2d 640; Powell v. Powell (1974) 3d Dist., 160 Ind.App. 132, 310 N.E.2d 898.
In my view, the majority’s imposition of a “reasonable likelihood of success” test, in the context of the case before us, is in reality a requirement that a petitioner for temporary injunction prematurely prove entitlement to final and permanent relief.
To say, as in Rees v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co., supra, that there must be a showing of irreparable harm does not justify a citation of that case (as in Steenhoven v. College Life Ins. (1984) 2d Dist. Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 661, reh. denied 460 N.E.2d 973, and in Indiana State Dept. of Welfare v. Stagner (1980) 4th Dist. Ind.App., 410 N.E.2d 1348) for the proposition that a temporary injunction may issue only upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood of success upon a trial for permanent injunction. In Wells v. Auberry (1982) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 679, the court observed that as the gravity of the threatened harm is reduced, the need to show a likelihood of ultimate success may increase. The court, however, clearly focused upon the need to show irreparable harm. In any event, I do not believe that a “reasonable *344likelihood of success” test is appropriate in the case before us.
In the order here appealed the trial court carefully set forth, as relevant, the various equitable considerations. They included the substantial expenditure made by the Department in stocking the salmon, the depletion of that fish population by the use of gill-nets, the inability of the commercial fishermen to reasonably employ an alternative method of catching perch, and the detriment to sport fishermen and the charter boat business. Having done so, the court then acknowledged the authority of the Department to issue the regulation in question and commended that legitimate effort to protect the wildlife resources of the State. The court, however, as was its obligation in attempting to maintain the status quo, stated that “a balancing of the equities” led to the grant of the temporary injunction.
Because there is evidentiary support for the factual conclusions reached by the trial court and because the court was clearly exercising its broad discretion in making the determination, I find no basis in the record to hold that the trial court abused that discretion in granting the injunction. State Board of Public Welfare v. Watkins (1984) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 459 N.E.2d 394.
The correctness or incorrectness of the interlocutory order, however, is not a necessary or even appropriate consideration for a proper disposition of this appeal.
In my view the dispute which previously existed is moot. The emergency order or regulation banning gill-nets expired by its own terms on October 31, 1986. The injunction against the enforcement of that order died with it. No other emergency order, no permanent order, or no other action by the Department is before us for review.
We should not hold, as does the majority, that because an issue is likely to recur it should be decided. It may well be that the Department contemplates a permanent ban upon the use of gill-nets in the Indiana waters of Lake Michigan or at least a restriction upon the size of the nets and/or the dates when such nets might be used. However, such contingency is not presented in the appeal before us. It requires sheer speculation to suppose that the Department will properly and duly promulgate another identical or even substantially similar ban at some future time. Even were we to assume that some regulation might be forthcoming with regard to the control of salmon population, or even the use of gill-nets, we do not know whether the factual data to test the reasonableness of such regulation will remain the same.
I recognize that my preferred resolution by dismissal of the appeal as moot might lead to a repetition of short term administrative rules and regulations which are not readily susceptible to full litigation and appellate review. I would not presume that the Department would engage in such tactics, however. In any event, the controversy which developed as a result of the Department's emergency order no longer exists and I am not convinced, that although it is of public import, it is likely to recur— at least not in the same or substantially identical form or content. For this reason the appeal should be dismissed as moot. Bremen Public Schools v. Varab (1986) 3d Dist. Ind.App., 496 N.E.2d 125; Bartholomew County Hospital v. Ryan (1982) 1st Dist. Ind.App., 440 N.E.2d 754.
It is possible to make an argument that given a time frame similar to that involved here, the grant of any injunction, other than a restraining order without notice, should be governed by the procedurers and principles applicable to permanent injunctions. See Peters v. Davidson, Inc. (1977) 1st Dist., 172 Ind.App. 39, 359 N.E.2d 556. In such cases, the consolidation provisions of Trial Rule 65(A)(2) would be made mandatory. Any such dramatic change, however, must come from our Supreme Court or the General Assembly.1
*345In a somewhat related context, the majority decision seems to say that an otherwise moot appeal becomes viable if a bond has been posted. As stated, it is my view that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law, in maintaining the status quo for the brief time covered by the Department’s emergency order. I hold this view even though I agree that the particular regulation in question is facially reasonable. Although the trial court might well have properly denied the temporary injunction, it did not err in granting it. Indiana Annual Conference Corp. v. Lemon, supra, 131 N.E.2d 780; School City of Gary v. Continental Electric Co. (1971) 149 Ind.App. 416, 273 N.E.2d 293.
Even were it otherwise, I would not rule upon the merits of the moot controversy merely to provide a predicate for the Department to recoup any losses from the bond posted by the commercial fishermen.
In Palace Pharmacy, Inc. v. Gardner and Guidone, Inc. (1975) 1st Dist., 164 Ind.App. 513, 329 N.E.2d 642, it was held that the reason for requiring a bond upon the issuance of a preliminary injunction is to protect against damage suffered as a result of the preliminary injunction if that party prevails at a later hearing, i.e., upon the final determination as to a permanent injunction. In the case before us, there is no showing that the cause ever proceeded beyond the preliminary injunction stage. It could be argued, therefore, that it is improper to make any determination with respect to the bond.
Furthermore, Howard D. Johnson Co. v. Parkside Development Corp. (1976) 1st Dist., 169 Ind.App. 379, 348 N.E.2d 656, holds that a bond is not a prerequisite for recovery of costs and damages suffered or incurred by a party wrongfully enjoined. To the same effect is Smith v. Indiana State Board of Health (1974) 1st Dist., 159 Ind.App. 360, 367, 307 N.E.2d 294, 298 (damages for wrongful injunction are recoverable even though no bond posted).
The existence of a bond in this case and any arguable claim by the Department of damages sustained during the period of the injunction do not therefore provide any sound basis for deciding the moot appeal.

. As a general proposition, a temporary injunction is improper if its issuance effectively adjudicates the merits and affords all or most of the relief which would be granted if plaintiff were successful at trial. Rees v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. (1978) 2d Dist., 176 Ind.App. 597, 611, 377 N.E.2d 640, 650.