law-temporary-injunction-requirements

law-temporary-injunction-requirements (TI) required elements | temporary injunction standards | TI criteria

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION REQUIREMENTS

A trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to deny a temporary injunction. Butnaru v. Ford
Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). We review the denial of a temporary injunction for a clear
abuse of discretion without addressing the merits of the underlying case. Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d
56, 58 (Tex. 1993). We will uphold the trial court’s determination against issuing injunctive relief unless the
trial court’s action was so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonable discretion. Butnaru, 84 S.W.
3d at 204. 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 decision. EMS USA, Inc. v.
Shary, 309 S.W.3d 653, 657 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). When, as here, no findings
of fact or conclusions of law are filed, the trial court’s determination of whether to grant or deny a temporary
injunction must be upheld on any legal theory supported by the record. Id.

An applicant for a temporary injunction seeks extraordinary relief. In re Tex. Natural Res. Conservation
Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 204 (Tex. 2002). The sole issue before the trial court in a temporary injunction
hearing is whether the applicant may preserve the status quo of the litigation’s subject matter pending trial
on the merits. Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Tex. 1978). The status quo is the last actual,
peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. RP & R, Inc. v. Territo, 32 S.W.
3d 396, 402 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.)

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. EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary, 309 S.W.3d 653, 657 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010,
no pet.) (citing Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204). To show a probable right of recovery, the applicant must plead
and present evidence to sustain the pleaded cause of action. Id. 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. Id. An existing legal remedy is adequate if it is as complete, practical, and efficient to
the ends of justice and its prompt administration as is equitable relief. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Texas
v. Wurzman, 861 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no writ.).   There is no adequate remedy at law if
the plaintiff cannot calculate damages or if a defendant is incapable of responding in damages. Id.   The
party applying for a temporary injunction has the burden of production, which is the burden of offering
some evidence that establishes a probable right to recover and a probable interim injury. Dallas
Anesthesiology Associates, P.A. v. Texas Anesthesia Group, P.A., 190 S.W.3d 891, 897 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2006, no pet.). If an applicant does not discharge its burden, it is not entitled to injunctive relief. Id.

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: Ju dge (now Justice) Jeffrey V. Brown

TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HO USTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE