law-ILA-temporary-injunction | interlocutory appeal from order denying special-appearance | interlocutory appeals (ILA) | arbitration
and interlocutory appeals | finality of order appealed from | interlocutory review of rulings on governmental unit's plea to the
jurisdiction | accelerated interlocutory appeals from temporary injunction orders (grant or denial) | interlocutory appeal from order
denying special-appearance | interlocutory appeals (ILA) | arbitration and interlocutory appeals | finality of order appealed from |
interlocutory review of rulings on governmental unit's plea to the jurisdiction | accelerated interlocutory appeals from temporary
injunction orders (grant or denial) | permissive-interlocutory-appeal | no final judgment | dismissal of appeal for want of jurisdiction
Interlocutory appeals of temporary injunctions is authorized by Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4). Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann § 51.014(a)(4)
(Vernon 2008).
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION APPEALS (HOUSTON CASES)
Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness
Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842
S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
A party may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court that grants or refuses a
temporary injunction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon
2008).
A temporary restraining order is generally not appealable. In re Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.
3d 201, 205 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding) (citing Del Valle Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 808, 809
(Tex. 1992)). A temporary injunction, on the other hand, is an appealable interlocutory order. Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(4) (Vernon 2008). “The fact that the order is denominated as a temporary restraining
order does not control whether the order is appealable.” In re Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.
3d at 205. Whether an order is a non-appealable temporary restraining order or an appealable temporary
injunction depends on the order’s characteristics and function, not its title. Id. (citing Qwest Commc’ns. Corp. v.
AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000); Del Valle, 845 S.W.2d at 809). An order that does more than
protect the status quo for the allowable period under Rule 680 is functionally an appealable temporary injunction.
See, e.g., Global Natural Res. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 642 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1982, no writ);
Plant Process Equip., Inc. v. Harris, 579 S.W.2d 53, 54 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, no writ).
EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] March 4, 2010)(Boyce)
(temporary injunction appeal, elements requirements for temporary injunction, noncompete agreements)
We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied EMS’s application for a temporary injunction without hearing
testimony regarding whether the non-compete covenant was (1) “ancillary to or part of” the personal services contract; and (2) a
reasonable restraint.
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
Harris County Medical Examiner v. Saghian (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 8, 2009)(Hanks)
(autopsy, free exercise of religion, Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, temporary injunction preventing
autopsy vacated, standing)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:
Opinion by Justice Hanks
Before Justices Jennings, Hanks and Bland
01-07-00951-CV Harris County Medical Examiner Luis Arturo Sanchez, M.D. v. Afsaneh Saghian
Appeal from 133rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lamar McCorkle
In this case, although it is nominally a “temporary restraining order,” the ancillary court’s October 16, 2007 order
is, in fact, an appealable temporary injunction because it irrevocably changed the status quo between the
parties. The order not only prevented the autopsy of Mr. Saghian, whose body was in the custody of the Medical
Examiner at that time, but also ordered the release of Mr. Saghian’s body to Afsaneh Saghian for burial.
Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over that portion of Dr. Sanchez’s appeal complaining of the ancillary court’s
October 16, 2007 order.
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE