Shelley Hause and Stephen Hause v. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas; the Fayetteville Planning Commission; and The…

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of the Hauses’ motion for a preliminary injunction because the requested relief would disrupt rather than preserve the status quo, the alleged monetary injury was compensable by damages, and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding no likelihood of success on the merits. The court declined to resolve the Hauses’ novel constitutional challenges at the interlocutory stage. It dismissed without prejudice the portion of the appeal concerning the Rule 9 administrative appeal because the order dismissing that claim was not final and appealable after the circuit court vacated its Rule 54(b) certification.