TEX. CASE LAW ---> temporary orders | temporary injunctions

law-temporary-orders | TRO | Temporary I njunctions | interlocutory appeals | injunctions |

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION CASELAW SNIPPETS

A temporary injunction's purpose is to preserve the status quo of the litigation's subject matter
pending a trial on the merits. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex.2002). Walling
v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex.1993).

A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and does not issue as a matter of right.
Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 57. 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. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 57.

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;
Canteen Corp. v. Republic of Tex. Props., Inc., 773 S.W.2d 398, 401 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, no
writ).

Whether to grant or deny a temporary injunction is within the trial court's sound discretion.
Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; 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.

APPELLATE REVIEW OF TEMPORARY ORDERS BY TEXAS SUPREME
COURT

In re OAG, No. 08-0165 (Tex. June 27, 2008) (per curiam) (child support collection, TRO void set
aside by mandamus)
IN RE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-08-00208-CV,
___ SW3d ___, 02-28-08) stay order issued February 29, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS CASES IN WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED
REVIEW

08-0324
DSTJ, L.L.P., SUCCESSOR TO DSTJ CORPORATION; AND MILESTONE OPERATING, INC. v. M &
M RESOURCES, INC.; ENERGY LAND RESOURCES A/K/A ENERGY LAND RESOURCES LAND
SERVICES; A.M. PHELAN, III; AND DANIEL PHELAN; from Jefferson County; 9th district
(09-07-00559-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-13-08) (accelerated appeal of an order modifying a
temporary injunction, competing claims to ownership of mineral leases)

The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the litigation's subject
matter pending a trial on the merits. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002).
The decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction lies within the trial court's sound discretion.
Id. On appeal, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless the trial court's
action was so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonable discretion. Id. Because the trial
court did not enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law, we presume all findings
necessary to support the trial court's ruling and affirm if there is any legal theory supported by the
record. Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Tex. 1978). The trial court does not abuse its
discretion if some evidence reasonably supports its decision. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 211 (citing
Davis, 571 S.W.2d at 862).

The status quo is the last actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending
controversy. Transport Co. of Tex. v. Robertson Transports, Inc., 152 Tex. 551, 261 S.W.2d 549,
553-54 (1953). The applicant must plead and prove three elements to obtain a temporary
injunction: (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. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. The
appellees' right to a temporary injunction was resolved in our first opinion. See Hudson v.
Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986) (Questions of law decided on appeal to a court of last
resort will govern the case throughout its subsequent stages.); DSTJ, 2006 WL 1360509 at *4. (3)
The issue in this appeal is limited to whether the trial court may enjoin production by the same
parties from the neighboring tract of land.

08-0573
MICHAEL LOU GARRETT v. LARRY E. BERGER, ET AL.; from Wichita County; 2nd district
(02-08-00030-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-19-08)(pro se prisoner suit, inmate litigation, temporary
injunction appeal)
To be entitled to a temporary injunction, the applicant must plead a cause of action and show a
probable right to recover on that cause of action and a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury
in the interim. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2004); Argyle ISD v. Wolf,
234 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2007, no pet.); Fox v. Tropical Warehouses, Inc., 121
S.W.3d 853, 857 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2003, no pet.). A probable right of recovery is shown by
alleging a cause of action and presenting evidence tending to sustain it. See Argyle ISD, 234
S.W.3d at 236; Fox, 121 S.W.3d at 857. An injury is irreparable if damages would not adequately
compensate the injured party or if they cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard.
Fox, 121 S.W.3d at 857; see also Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204.

The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a trial on the merits. See
Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993); Fox, 121 S.W.3d
at 857. AStatus quo is defined as >the last, actual, peaceable, noncontested status which
preceded the pending controversy.=@   Fox, 121 S.W.3d at 857; Universal Health Servs., Inc. v.
Thompson, 24 S.W.3d 570, 577 (Tex. App.CAustin 2000, no pet.) (quoting Transport Co. of Tex.
v. Robertson Transports, Inc., 152 Tex. 551, 261 S.W.2d 549, 553-54 (1953)).

In an appeal from an order granting or denying a temporary injunction, the scope of review is
restricted to the validity of the order granting or denying relief. See Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 58;
Fox, 121 S.W.3d at 857. Whether to grant or deny a request for a temporary injunction is within
the trial court=s discretion, and we will not reverse its decision absent an abuse of discretion. See
Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 58; Fox, 121 S.W.3d at 857. Accordingly,
when reviewing such a decision, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court=s order, indulging every reasonable inference in its favor, and determine whether the order
was so arbitrary that it exceeds the bounds of reasonable discretion. See Fox, 121 S.W.3d at 857;
Thompson, 24 S.W.3d at 576. A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it bases its decision on
conflicting evidence and evidence in the record reasonably supports the trial court=s decision.
Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Tex. 1978); Fox, 121 S.W.3d at 857.

Also see:
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams |
Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions H omepage |