law-temporary-injunction-requirements (TI) required elements
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION REQUIREMENTS
A temporary injunction preserves the status quo until trial on the merits. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.
W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). To obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must plead a cause of action
against the defendant and show both a probable right to recover on that cause of action and a probable,
imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Id. To show a probable right of recovery, the applicant must
present evidence to sustain the pleaded cause of action. IAC, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.
3d 191, 197 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). An injury is irreparable when the injured party cannot
be adequately compensated in damages or if damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary
standard. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204.
EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] March 4, 2010)(Boyce)
(temporary injunction appeal, elements requirements for temporary injunction, noncompete agreements)
(denial of temporary injunction to enforce noncompete reversed)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Bill Boyce
Before Justices Frost, Boyce and Sullivan
14-09-00543-CV EMS USA, Inc v. Robert Shary
Appeal from 334th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Sharon McCally
A temporary injunction preserves the status quo until trial on the merits. Butnaru v. Ford
Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). To obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must plead a
cause of action against the defendant and show both a probable right to recover on that cause of action
and a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Id. To show a probable right of recovery,
the applicant must present evidence to sustain the pleaded cause of action. IAC, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 191, 197 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). An injury is irreparable when the
injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if damages cannot be measured by any
certain pecuniary standard. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204.
The decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993). A trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting
a temporary injunction if some evidence supports its decision. Sharma v. Vinmar Int'l, Ltd., 231 S.W.3d
405, 419 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.). In reviewing the trial court's exercise of discretion,
the appellate court must draw all legitimate inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the
trial court's order granting the temporary injunction. Id.
The temporary injunction enjoining sale or conveyance of the property merely maintains the status quo
until the district court can determine whether Ryals breached the trust agreement by removing Maxie
Westbrook and Guinn as trustees.
Ryals v. Ogden (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2009) (Boyce)
(temporary injunction appeal, multiple proceedings in different courts, unclean hands doctrine inapplicable,
res judicata does not apply, other court did not have jurisdiction, collateral attack on prior judgment).
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Boyce
Before Justices Anderson, Frost and Boyce
14-07-01008-CV Kenneth Ryals, Managing Trustee of East Texas Investment Trust v. Lisa Ogden,
Steven Gayle and Wayne Westbrook
Appeal from 55th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Judge (now Justice) Jeffrey V. Brown
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE