Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: in Re Robert Joseph Yezak (texapp, 2021-01-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) in Re Robert Joseph Yezak
Tex. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
No statutory provision permits an appeal from the grant or denial of a temporary restraining order.1 See Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. 1995); Nikolouzos v. St.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spiro Nikolouzos by His Wife Jannette Nikolouzos v. St Lukes Episcopal Hospital
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
While an interlocutory appeal from the grant or denial of a temporary injunction is allowed, no statutory provision permits an appeal from a temporary restraining order. [2] See Lesikar v. Rappeport , 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. 1995); Cross Media Network, Inc. v. Sandefer , 2000 WL 1260251 , *1 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication); see also Tex. Civ.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nikolouzos v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
While an interlocutory appeal from the grant or denial of a temporary injunction is allowed, no statutory provision permits an appeal from a temporary restraining order. [2] See Lesikar v. Rappeport, *681 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex.1995); Cross Media Network, Inc. v. Sandefer, 2000 WL 1260251 , *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication); see also TEX.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re DRS
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Tex. Fam.Code § 105.001(e) (stating no interlocutory appeals may be taken from temporary orders); Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex.1995) (stating no interlocutory appeals may be taken from temporary restraining orders).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of D.R.S.
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Code § 105.001(e) (stating no interlocutory appeals may be taken from temporary or'ders); Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex.1995) (stating no interlocutory appeals may be taken from temporary restraining orders).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in the Interest of D. R. S.
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Code ' 105.001(e) (stating no interlocutory appeals may be taken from temporary orders); Lesikar v. Rappeport , 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. 1995) (stating no interlocutory appeals may be taken from temporary restraining orders).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (2×)
Tex. · 2002 · confidence medium
P. 680.Ex parte Lesikar, 899 S.W.2d 654, 654 (Tex.1995) (holding that such extensions must be in writing).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Gamble (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. · 2002 · confidence medium
P. 680. [19] See Ex Parte Lesikar, 899 S.W.2d 654, 654 (Tex.1995) (temporary restraining order not extended by implication). [20] See Tex. Elec.Code §§ 273.061, 273.062.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Waco Independent School District v. Gibson (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. · 2000 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] 971 S.W.2d 199 . [2] 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex.1993). [3] See Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Tex., Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex.1998). [4] See Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex.1995). [5] The trial court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims except for a claim that WISD adopted the contested policy in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
cited Cited "see" Michael Ray Mangum v. Jane Doe
txctapp8 · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam); see also Tex. Civ.
cited Cited "see" Michael J. DeLitta And DeLCom Properties, LLC v. Nancy Schaefer
Tex. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex.1995) (determining whether interlocutory order being appealed was temporary injunction).
cited Cited "see" in Re George Green and Garlan Green
Tex. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654 , 655 885.
cited Cited "see" Jeffrey D. Westbrook v. David F. Fondren, Frank D. Hoke, Gary L. Johnson, John Patrick, Rodney Cooper, Gary West, Deborah Ford, James Mooneyham, Jimmy Webb, Priscilla Morales, Jimmy Bowman, Vickie Barrow, Kelli Ward, Patsy Bell, Danny Horton, Roy Monroe, and Sherilyn Trent
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lesikar v. Rappeport , 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. 1995); Nikolouzos v. St.
cited Cited "see" Jeffrey D. Westbrook v. David F. Fondren, Frank D. Hoke, Gary L. Johnson, John Patrick, Rodney Cooper, Gary West, Deborah Ford, James Mooneyham, Jimmy Webb, Priscilla Morales, Jimmy Bowman, Vickie Barrow, Kelli Ward, Patsy Bell, Danny Horton, Roy Monroe, and Sherilyn Trent
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. 1995); Nikolouzos v. St.
discussed Cited "see" University of Texas at Austin v. Joscelin Yeo
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lesikar v. Rappeport , 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. 1995); Ex Parte Tucci , 859 S.W.2d 1 , 2 n.4 (Tex. 1993); Ohlhausen v. Thompson , 704 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (citing Arvol D.
cited Cited "see" Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT & T CORP.
Tex. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex.1995) (determining whether interlocutory order being appealed was temporary injunction).
discussed Cited "see" in Re Edward D. Jones & Co. (2×)
Tex. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lesikar , 899 S.W.2d at 654 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Lauren Ashley Alleman v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See In re Texas State Univ., No. 03-19-00364-CV, 2019 WL 2707971 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 27, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding that expiration of TRO rendered relators’ challenge of TRO moot); see also Lesikar v. Rappeport, 899 S.W.2d 654, 655 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that trial court’s grant of temporary injunction while appeal was 2 pending effectively converted TRO into temporary injunction and rendered moot appeal challenging court of appeals’ decision that held trial court’s challenged order was TRO for which there is no interlocutory appeal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lynwood LESIKAR, Petitioner,
v.
Jenny Lou Lewis RAPPEPORT, Individually, and D/B/A L & G Oil Company, Fay Jeter Lewis, John Robbins, Dorothy Kennedy, Betty Lloyd, and H.R. McGookin, Respondents
95-0015.
Texas Supreme Court.
Jun 29, 1995.
899 S.W.2d 654
S. Gary Werley, Kristin M. Jenkins, Fort Worth, for petitioner., Jerry S. Harris, Gregory P. Grajczyk, Longview, for respondents.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an interlocutory order. In an unpublished opinion the court of appeals concluded that the order from which appeal was sought was a temporary restraining order, for which there is no provision for an interlocutory appeal, rather than a temporary injunction, from which an interlocutory appeal is statutorily authorized. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The sole point in the application is that the court of appeals erred in holding it lacked jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction to determine whether the court of appeals correctly decided its jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal. Del Valle Ini. School Dist. v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Tex.1992); Long v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 380 S.W.2d 554, 555 (Tex.1964).

During the pendency of the appeal, the trial court has heard the temporary injunction application and granted a temporary injunction effectively converting the temporary restraining order into a temporary injunction. Respondents urge this makes the appeal moot. That is true only if all matters in controversy between the parties which depend upon the validity of the extension order have been otherwise resolved.

Today we have held that the contempt judgment rendered against Lesikar for violating the extension order is otherwise void, and we have ordered him discharged from custody. Ex parte Lesikar, 899 S.W.2d 654. This is the only matter appearing of record which may be affected by the validity vel non of the extension order. With our disposition of this companion habeas corpus proceeding, we agree the matters in controversy are now moot.

Without hearing argument, a majority of the court grants the application for writ of error and, without reference to the merits, dismisses the cause as moot. Tex. R. App. P. 170.