Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tom James Co. v. Mendropgreen2 sentences2022“An adequate remedy at law is one that is as complete, practical, and efficient to the prompt administration of justice as is equitable relief.” Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) “An injunction will not issue if damages are sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for any wrong committed by the defendant and if the damages are subject –18– to measurement by an ascertainable pecuniary standard.” Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ). 2019“An injunction will not issue if damages are sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for any wrong committed by the defendant and if the damages are subject to measurement by an ascertainable pecuniary standard.” 15 Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ). | 10 | 10 |
Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowengreen2 sentences2022“An adequate remedy at law is one that is as complete, practical, and efficient to the prompt administration of justice as is equitable relief.” Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) “An injunction will not issue if damages are sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for any wrong committed by the defendant and if the damages are subject –18– to measurement by an ascertainable pecuniary standard.” Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ). 2013Analysis “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 ; Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Group, 173 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); see Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (quoting Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204 ); Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (“An injunction will not issue if damages are suffici | 4 | 4 |
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2013Analysis “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 ; Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Group, 173 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); see Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (quoting Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204 ); Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (“An injunction will not issue if damages are suffici 2013Analysis “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 ; Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Group, 173 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); see Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (quoting Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204 ); Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (“An injunction will not issue if damages are suffici | 3 | 5 |
Bueckner v. Hamelgreen2 sentences2008See id. ; Butnaru , 84 S.W.3d at 211 ; Mendrop , 819 S.W.2d at 253 ; see also Bueckner v. Hamel , 886 S.W.2d 368, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (Andell, J., concurring) (noting that the intrinsic value of domestic animals to their owners may be much greater than their market value); Harris v. Barcroft , 543 P.2d 656, 657 (Or. 1975) (declaring that, where the evidence established a dog was of championship caliber, the dog was unique chattel and would therefore be the proper subject of specific performance); Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule , 103 2008See id.; Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 211 ; Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d at 253 ; see also Bueckner v. Hamel, 886 S.W.2d 368, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (Andell, J., concurring) (noting that the intrinsic value of domestic animals to their owners may be much greater than their market value); Harris v. Barcroft, 543 P.2d 656, 657 (Or. 1975) (declaring that, where the evidence established a dog was of championship caliber, the dog was unique chattel and would therefore be the proper subject of specific performance); Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule, 103 H ARV. | 2 | 2 |
Harris v. Barcroftgreen2 sentences2008See id. ; Butnaru , 84 S.W.3d at 211 ; Mendrop , 819 S.W.2d at 253 ; see also Bueckner v. Hamel , 886 S.W.2d 368, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (Andell, J., concurring) (noting that the intrinsic value of domestic animals to their owners may be much greater than their market value); Harris v. Barcroft , 543 P.2d 656, 657 (Or. 1975) (declaring that, where the evidence established a dog was of championship caliber, the dog was unique chattel and would therefore be the proper subject of specific performance); Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule , 103 2008See id.; Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 211 ; Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d at 253 ; see also Bueckner v. Hamel, 886 S.W.2d 368, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (Andell, J., concurring) (noting that the intrinsic value of domestic animals to their owners may be much greater than their market value); Harris v. Barcroft, 543 P.2d 656, 657 (Or. 1975) (declaring that, where the evidence established a dog was of championship caliber, the dog was unique chattel and would therefore be the proper subject of specific performance); Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule, 103 H ARV. | 2 | 2 |
Minexa Arizona, Inc. v. Staubachgreen2 sentences2015Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.-- Fort Worth 1991, no writ), and Minexa Ariz., Inc. v. Staubach, 667 S.W.2d 563, 567 (Tex. App.-- Dallas 1984, no writ). 1991Minexa Arizona, Inc. v. Staubauch, 667 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, no writ). | 1 | 2 |
Cheniere Energy, Inc. and Cheniere LNG Terminals, LLC v. Parallax Enterprises LLC, Parallax Energy LLC, Parallax Enterprises (NOLA) LLC, Live Oak LNG LLC, Live Oak LNG Pipeline LLC, Moss Lake LNG LLC, Louisiana LNG Energy, LLC, and Calcasieu LNG LLCgreen1 sentence2025Kazi v. Sohail, No. 05- 21-00432-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 455 , at *21-22 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.); accord Cheniere Energy, Inc., 585 S.W.3d at 76-77 (stating that “[m]oney damages are generally adequate to compensate an injured party unless the loss 5 at issue is considered ‘legally “unique” or irreplaceable’”). | 1 | 1 |
Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Groupgreen1 sentence2013Analysis “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 ; Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Group, 173 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); see Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (quoting Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204 ); Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, no writ) (“An injunction will not issue if damages are suffici | 1 | 1 |
Argyle Independent School District ex rel. Board of Trustees v. Wolfgreen1 sentence2008See id. ; Butnaru , 84 S.W.3d at 211 ; Mendrop , 819 S.W.2d at 253 ; see also Bueckner v. Hamel , 886 S.W.2d 368, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (Andell, J., concurring) (noting that the intrinsic value of domestic animals to their owners may be much greater than their market value); Harris v. Barcroft , 543 P.2d 656, 657 (Or. 1975) (declaring that, where the evidence established a dog was of championship caliber, the dog was unique chattel and would therefore be the proper subject of specific performance); Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule , 103 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||