# Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 30, 1975 · 422 U.S. 922

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426204

## Case

- **Full name:** DORAN v. SALEM INN, INC., Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 30, 1975
- **Citations:** 422 U.S. 922; 95 S. Ct. 2561; 45 L. Ed. 2d 648; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 86
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Douglas
- **Judges:** Douglas, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 1,147 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426204

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[t]he principle underlying Younger and Samuels [v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688] is that state courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional claims, and, therefore, a federal court should, in all but the most exceptional circumstan…
- holding that “[although the customary “barroom” type of nude dancing may involve only the barest minimum of protected expression, we recognized in California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 118, 93 S.Ct. 390, 397, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972), that this form of entertainment might be entitle…
- stating that "[a]lthough customary 'barroom' type of nude dancing may involve only the barest minimum of protected expression, we recognized in California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 118, 93 S.Ct. 390, 397, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972), that this form of entertainment might be entitled t…
- stating that “[although customary ‘barroom’ type of nude dancing may involve only the barest minimum of protected expression, we recognized in California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 118, 93 S.Ct. 390, 397, 34 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972), that this form of entertainment might be entitled to…
- stating that at the conclusion of a successful federal challenge to a state statute or local ordinance, a district court can “generally protect the interests of a federal plaintiff by entering a declaratory judgment,” thereby rendering the extraordinary relief afforded by an i…

## Opinion text

Me. Justice Douglas,
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
While adhering to my position in Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 58 (1971) (dissenting opinion), I join the judgment of the Court insofar as it holds that Salem Inn and Tim-Rob were entitled to a preliminary injunction pending disposition of their request for declaratory relief. I do not condone the conduct of M & L in violating the challenged ordinance without awaiting judicial action on its federal complaint, but like the Court of Appeals, I find no compelling reason to distinguish M & L from the other respondents in terms of the relief which is appropriate. I would therefore affirm the judgment below in all respects.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426204. Public record. Not legal advice.