Mabe v. City of Galveston
Court of Appeals of Texas
687 S.W. 2d 769 (1985)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
James Mabe (defendant) owned a gift shop on Seawall Boulevard on a beachfront in Galveston. Due to comments from customers and visitors to his store, Mabe became aware of a lack of public bathrooms on the beachfront. Mabe made repeated complaints before the Galveston City Council (City Council) and the Park Board of Trustees (Park Board) (plaintiff). After concluding that the City Council and Park Board were insufficiently concerned, Mabe began distributing pamphlets to the public, apologizing for the lack of public bathrooms and publishing the names and phone numbers of the City Council and Park Board members. Subsequently, some of the City Council and Park Board members began receiving phone calls at home complaining about the lack of bathrooms. Some of these calls were late at night or early in the morning. The phone numbers published in the pamphlets were in the Galveston public directory. Some of the phone numbers were also in public materials published by the Park Board. The City of Galveston (City) (plaintiff) and the Park Board sued for a temporary injunction to bar Mabe from distributing the pamphlets, arguing that the pamphlets violated the privacy of the City Council and Park Board members. Mabe opposed the injunction, arguing that the City and the Park Board lacked standing and that an injunction would violate his First Amendment rights. The trial court granted the injunction, and Mabe appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Evans, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.