law-injunctions | temporary injunctions during pendency of lawsuit | permanent injunction by final judgment
In an appeal from a permanent injunction, the standard of review is clear abuse of discretion. Triantaphyllis v.
Gamble, 93 S.W.3d 398, 402 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); W. Wendell Hall et al., Hall’s
Standards of Review in Texas, 42 ST. MARY’S L.J. 1, 121 (2010). Although a litigant is entitled to a jury trial
when seeking injunctive relief, the jury only determines ultimate factual issues. W. Wendell Hall et al., Hall’s
Standards of Review in Texas, 42 ST. MARY’S L.J. 1, 121 (2010). The trial court determines the “expediency,
necessity or propriety” of any award of this form of equitable relief. Id. (quoting Priest v. Tex. Animal Health
Comm’n, 780 S.W.2d 874, 875 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, no writ)).
INJUNCTION CASE LAW SNIPPETS
Ordinarily, there are four elements to establish to get an injunction:
(1) the existence of a wrongful act; (2) the existence of imminent harm; (3) the existence of irreparable injury;
and (4) the absence of an adequate remedy at law. The purpose of injunctive relief is not to grant relief for
past actionable wrongs or to prevent commission of wrongs not imminently threatened.
Webb v. Glenbrook Owners Ass’n, 298 S.W.3d 374, 384 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citations omitted).
A permanent injunction is not a cause of action but an equitable remedy.” Cooper v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP,
325 S.W.3d 766, 769 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied) (citing Brittingham v. Ayala, 995 S.W.2d 199, 201
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied)). “To obtain an injunction a party must first assert a cause of
Injunctive relief is ordinarily available if a wrongful act gives rise to imminent and irreparable harm for which
there is no adequate remedy at law. Letkeman v. Reyes, 299 S.W.3d 482, 486 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no
pet.) (restrictive covenants); Jim Rutherford Invs., Inc. v. Terramar Beach Cmty. Ass’n, 25 S.W.3d 845, 849
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). To obtain injunctive relief, one must generally establish
the existence of imminent harm. Operation Rescue-Nat’l v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex., Inc.,
975 S.W.2d 546, 554 (Tex. 1998); Frey v. DeCordova Bend Estates Owners Ass’n, 647 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Tex.
“[A]n injunction will not lie to prevent an alleged threatened act, the commission of which is speculative and the
injury from which is purely conjectural.” Markel v. World Flight, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 74, 80 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1996, no writ). Fear of a possible injury is not sufficient. Frey, 647 S.W.2d at 248.
There are two general types of temporary injunctions: prohibitive and mandatory. RP&R, Inc. v. Territo, 32 S.W.
3d 396, 400 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); LeFaucheur v. Williams, 807 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex.
App.--Austin 1991, no pet.). A prohibitive injunction forbids conduct, whereas a mandatory injunction requires it.
Lifeguard Benefit Services, Inc. v. Direct Medical Network Solutions, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 102, 112 (Tex.App.--Fort
Worth 2010, no pet.); RP&R, Inc., 32 S.W.3d at 400. A temporary mandatory injunction changes the status quo.
RP&R, Inc., 32 S.W.3d at 401. Consequently, it should only be granted when necessary to prevent irreparable
injury or extreme hardship. Iranian Muslim Org. v. City of San Antonio, 615 S.W.2d 202, 208 (Tex. 1981);
RP&R, Inc., 32 S.W.3d at 401; LeFaucheur, 807 S.W.2d at 22. A trial court has the power to grant a temporary
mandatory injunction only where the circumstances justify it. RP&R, Inc., 32 S.W.3d at 400-01; Rhodia, Inc. v.
Harris County, 470 S.W.2d 415, 419 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1971, no writ). While granting a
mandatory injunction is within the sound discretion of the trial court, the grant should be denied absent a clear
and compelling presentation of extreme necessity or hardship. RP&R, Inc., 32 S.W.3d at 401; Rhodia, 470 S.W.
2d at 419.
An injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately compensated, or one for which the
damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Housing
Authority of City of El Paso v. City of El Paso, 141 S.W.3d 663, 667 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2004, no pet.).
Orders granting injunctions must be specific and describe in reasonable detail the act sought to be restrained.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. An injunction must be definite, clear, and concise, leaving the person enjoined in no
doubt about his duties, without calling on him for inferences or conclusions about which persons might differ.
See id.; Vaughn v. Drennon, 202 S.W.3d 308, 316 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2006, no pet.).
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 682 provides, "No writ of injunction shall be granted unless the applicant therefor
shall present his petition to the judge verified by his affidavit and containing a plain and intelligible statement of
the grounds for such relief." Tex. R. Civ. P. 682. "To obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must plead
and prove three specific elements: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief
sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim." TMC Worldwide, L.P. v. Gray, 178 S.
W.3d 29, 36 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (emphasis added) (citing Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.,
84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002)).
Standard of Review
The decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction is within the trial court’s sound discretion. Walling v.
Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993). An appellate court will not reverse a trial court’s decision to deny an
application for a temporary injunction absent an abuse of discretion. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d
198, 204 (Tex. 2002); Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 58. “The reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for the
trial court’s judgment unless the trial court’s action was so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonable
discretion.” Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
order and indulge reasonable inferences in its favor. EMSL Analytical, Inc. v. Younker, 154 S.W.3d 693, 696
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
“A temporary injunction’s purpose is to preserve the status quo of the litigation’s subject matter pending a trial
on the merits.” Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. The term “status quo” is defined as the last, actual, peaceable,
non-contested status that preceded the pending controversy. In re Newton, 146 S.W.3d 648, 651 (Tex. 2004).
A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and will not issue as a matter of right. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at
To secure a temporary injunction, an applicant must plead and prove three elements: (1) a cause of action
against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable
injury in the interim. Id. “A probable right of recovery is shown by alleging a cause of action and presenting
evidence tending to sustain it.” Frequent Flyer Depot, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 215, 220 (Tex. App.
—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 2061 (2010). “An injury is irreparable if the injured
party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any certain
pecuniary standard.” Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. “That is, the applicant has to establish there is no adequate
remedy at law for damages.” Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). “An existing remedy is adequate if it ‘is as complete and as practical and
efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as is equitable relief.’” Blackthorne v. Bellush, 61 S.
W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (citation omitted).
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending a
final decision on the rights of the parties. See Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002);
Elliott v. Lewis, 792 S.W.2d 853, 854 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990, no writ) . The decision to grant or deny a
temporary injunction is within the trial court's sound discretion. See Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204 . Our review of a
trial court's grant or denial of a temporary injunction is strictly limited to evaluating whether there has been an
abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting or denying the interlocutory order. Id. We do not review the
merits of the case. See Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 961 (Tex. 1978); Murphy v. McDaniel, 20 S.W.3d 873,
877 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2000, no pet.).
THE SHED, LLC AND MARY ELLEN MALONE v. EDOM WASH 'N DRY, LLC; from Van Zandt County;12th
district (12-07-00431-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-18-09, pet. denied July 2009) 2 petitions (easement dispute,
injunction, exemplary damages reversed, attorneys fees must be segregated)
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams | Texas Caselaw
Topics Pages | Texas Opinions Homepage |