temporary injunction hearing in Texas

2017Finally, GeoSteering notes that Efremov represented that he was an employee of GeoSteering until this litigation. “[A]s the trial court functions as the fact finder in a temporary injunction hearing, an abuse of discretion does not exist where the trial court bases its decision on conflicting evidence.” Sharma v. Vinmar Int’l Ltd., 231 S.W.3d 405, 419 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Tex. 1978)).

2014At a temporary injunction hearing, the only issue before the trial court is whether the applicant is entitled to preservation of the status quo of the suit’s subject matter pending trial on the merits. -4- 04-14-00208-CV Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Tex. 1978); accord Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204 ; Blackthorne v. Bellush, 61 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.).

2022The well-established temporary-injunction standard applied by the district court requires the party seeking the injunction to establish: “(1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim.” Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002).

2022In a temporary injunction hearing, the trial court examines, in part, whether the party seeking temporary injunctive relief is entitled to “preserve the status quo of the litigation’s subject matter pending a trial on the merits.” Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002).

2025“Thus, the legal issues before the trial court at a temporary injunction hearing are whether the TDI APPELLANTS’ BRIEF 12 applicant showed a probability of success and irreparable injury; the underlying merits of the controversy are not presented.” Tom James of Dall., Inc., 109 S.W.3d at 882 .

2023Co., 526 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975) (defining status quo as the “last, actual, peaceable, non-contested status that preceded the pending controversy”); see also Tom James of Dallas, Inc. v. Cobb, 109 S.W.3d 877, 882 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2003, no pet.) (noting that the underlying merits of the controversy are not legal issues pending before the trial court during a temporary-injunction hearing).

2017The only question before the trial court in a temporary injunction hearing is whether the applicant is entitled to preservation of the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending trial on the merits12. 6 Perez v. Texas Medical Board et al, No. 03-14-00644-CV (3rd DCA-2015); Petition for Supreme Court Review denied Perez v. Texas Medical Board and Mari Robinson JD, in her official capacity, No. 16-0026 (TX -March 18, 2016) 7 Allen v. Port Drum Co., Inc., 777 SW 2d 776 , , 778 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1989, writ denied) citing Sec. 16.064, Civil Practice and Remedies Code 8States that the te

2016See Iranian Muslim Org. v. City of San Antonio, 615 S.W.2d 202, 208 (Tex.1981) (“[T]he only question before the trial court in a temporary injunction hearing is whether the applicant is entitled to preservation of the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending trial on the merits.

2018They contend that the trial court erred in entering the temporary injunction because: (i) Empire was not provided notice of the temporary injunction hearing; (ii) “Quantum gave Empire the stock at issue in accordance with the contract such that there was no probable right to relief for conversion,” and (iii) there was no showing of imminent or irreparable harm because “the damages here are monetary.” Standard of Review and Applicable Law “A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and does not issue as a matter of right.” Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (citing

2015See, e.g., Turner v. Turner, No. 14-98-00510-CV, 1999 WL 33659 , at *3 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.], Jan. 28, 1999, no pet.) (“Here, because the temporary injunction hearing was related to an ancillary matter which did not resolve the issues of law or fact alleged in the underlying suit, we conclude counsel's appearance and participation did not constitute a general appearance.”) See Cf. Perkola v. Koelling & Assocs., Inc., 601 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1980, writ dism'd) See also •Green v. Green, 424 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Tex.Civ.App.- Tyler 1968, no writ); •See also Walling v. Metc

2015Moreover, in a temporary injunction hearing "[T]he ultimate merits of the case are not before the trial court." Reyes, 411 S.W.3d at 924 -25 (quoting Reach Grp., L.L.C. v. Angelina Grp., 173 S.W.3d 834, 837 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.)).

2012See Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Group, 173 S.W.3d 834, 837 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) ("At a temporary injunction hearing, the ultimate merits of the case are not before the trial court.”); see also Davis, 571 S.W.2d at 862 (holding that the appellate court erred in its review of a temporary injunction by giving full consideration to the merits of the underlying lawsuit). .

2013See Loye v. Travelhost, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.) ("The trial judge's decision to grant a temporary injunction was based on the evidence presented at the temporary injunction hearing.

2008Finally, although appellants could establish irreparable harm if appellees were insolvent, Loye v. Travelhost, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 615, 621 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.), the evidence at the temporary injunction hearing established appellants could place any distributions that would be due to appellees, should they prevail, into an escrow account.

2020See Millwrights, 433 S.W.2d at 686 .

2020Millwrights Local Union No. 2484 v. Rust Eng’g Co., 433 S.W.2d 683 , 686–87 (Tex. 1968); see also In re Tex. Nat.

2007See IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 856 .

2007See IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 856 .

2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 18 (1998) Standard of Review [1] The sole issue before a trial court in a temporary injunction hearing is whether the applicant may preserve the status quo, pending trial on the merits.

2003Justice, 39 S.W.3d at 343 . 21: Id.; T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc ., 965 S.W.2d 18, 21-22 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (holding plaintiff showed probability of success proving that its confidential information was entitled to trade secret protection). 22: Robbins and other executives of SandStream had taken out personal loans to help employees with financial hardship before the lay-off in May 2002. 23: There was conflicting evidence on whether Mabrey has now exercised a unilateral option not to continue funding Fiber.TV pursuant to his agreement with

2017The only question before the trial court in a temporary injunction hearing is whether the applicant is entitled to preservation of the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending trial on the merits12. 6 Perez v. Texas Medical Board et al, No. 03-14-00644-CV (3rd DCA-2015); Petition for Supreme Court Review denied Perez v. Texas Medical Board and Mari Robinson JD, in her official capacity, No. 16-0026 (TX -March 18, 2016) 7 Allen v. Port Drum Co., Inc., 777 SW 2d 776 , , 778 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1989, writ denied) citing Sec. 16.064, Civil Practice and Remedies Code 8States that the te

2016Comm’n v. Water Servs., Inc., 709 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Tex.App.-Austin 1986, pet. dism’d) (“The [supreme [c]ourt’s recognition that a temporary injunction hearing is not the same as a hearing on the merits echoes throughout our jurisprudence.”); Tex. Emp’t Comm’n v. Norris, 634 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1982, no writ) (“A hearing on an application for a temporary injunction is not a substitute for, nor does it serve the same purpose as the hearing on the merits.” (citing Sw.

2025As Naissance Galleria succinctly states in its appellant’s brief, Zaheer “says she did not sign it.” Choudhri “says she did.” Because “the trial court functions as the fact finder in a temporary injunction hearing, an abuse of discretion does not exist where the trial court bases its decision on conflicting evidence.” Sharma v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd., 231 S.W.3d 405, 419 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.). 18 2.

2022Capital Corp. v. Fowler, No. 14-10-00992-CV, 2011 WL 2367086 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 9, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether the applicant met its burden to establish all requirements for a temporary injunction); Sharma, 231 S.W.3d at 426 (stating that appellate courts defer to the trial court’s assessments concerning the weight and credibility of the evidence offered in a temporary injunction hearing).

2022See LasikPlus of Texas, P.C. v. Mattioli, 418 S.W.3d 210, 216 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.); see also Camp Mystic, Inc. v. Eastland, 399 S.W.3d 266, 272-73 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (“At the hearing for a temporary injunction, the applicant is not required to establish that it will prevail on final trial.”).

2014LasikPlus of Tex., P.C. v. Mattioli, 418 S.W.3d 210, 216 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). 4 no pet.) (“[A]s the trial court functions as the fact finder in a temporary injunction hearing, an abuse of discretion does not exist where the trial court bases its decision on conflicting evidence.”).

2026See Courtright, 647 S.W.3d at 519 (stating party seeking injunction must establish likelihood of success on merits of party’s claims to obtain injunctive relief); EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary, 309 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“The legal issues before a trial court at a temporary injunction hearing are whether the applicant showed a probability of success and irreparable injury.”).

2025See Courtright, 647 S.W.3d at 519 (stating party seeking injunction must establish likelihood of success on merits of party’s claims to obtain injunctive relief); EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary, 309 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“The legal issues before a trial court at a temporary injunction hearing are whether the applicant showed a probability of success and irreparable injury.”).

2014See Elliott v. Lewis, 792 S.W.2d 853 , 854–55 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, no pet.) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion by arbitrarily terminating the temporary-injunction hearing during the cross-examination of the first witness without giving the other party a reasonable opportunity to be heard).

2011Elliott , 792 S.W.2d at 855 (holding that terminating a temporary injunction hearing and entering a temporary injunction against a party before the party has had an opportunity to present its defenses is an abuse of discretion).

2013See Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 211 (citing Sun Oil Co. v. Whitaker, 424 S.W.2d 216, 218 (Tex. 1968), for proposition that party is not required to prove it would prevail at final trial in order to obtain temporary injunction).

2008See Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 58 (“the issue in determining whether an applicant has met the first qualification for a temporary writ of injunction is not whether the prayer seeking the writ and the ultimate cause of action are related, but whether the applicant has a cause of action at all.”); Sun Oil Co. v. Whitaker, 424 S.W.2d 216, 218 (Tex. 1968) (holding that “an applicant is not required to establish that he will prevail on final trial; he needs only to plead a cause of action and to show a probable right on final 5 trial to the relief he seeks and probable injury in the interim.”) Shorelin

2016Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones, 160 Tex. 104 , 327 S.W.2d 417, 421-22 (1959))).

2016Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones, 160 Tex. 104 , 327 S.W.2d 417, 421-22 (1959))).

2015Nelkin v. Young, 397 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

2007Davis, 571 S.W.2d at 862 ; Nelkin v. Young, 397 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1965, writ refused n.r.e.).

2014See Thomas v. Beaumont Heritage Soc’y, 296 S.W.3d 350, 352 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.).

2013See Thomas v. Beaumont Heritage Soc’y, 296 S.W.3d 350, 352 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.).

2023Accident Bd., 798 S.W.2d 651, 660 (Tex. App.— Austin 1990, writ dism’d w.o.j.))); Thompson, 24 S.W.3d at 579 (stating that appellate court views evidence in light most favorable to trial court’s order and concluding that trial court did 9 Texas Disposal’s principal owner testified that he attended the November city council meeting, and CTR’s director testified about CTR’s attempts to contact Texas Disposal and its communications with others about the Refuse Collection Contract shortly after the November meeting. 10 CTR’s director testified that if the city council’s decisions “are rolled back

2015Id. [7] [8] In a temporary injunction hearing, the trial court assesses whether the applicant has shown a probable right to recovery and a probable injury in the interim.

2023On appeal, Perkola complained that he had not waived his venue motion by appearing at the temporary- injunction hearing, and the court agreed, stating that his appearance at the hearing on an ancillary matter was not an appearance in the main case because the temporary- injunction hearing did not resolve any of the main case’s legal or factual issues, and he had done nothing else that “in any manner invoked the power of the court.” Id. at 111–12.

2020In Perkola, a case from our Court, we considered the denial of a plea of privilege and whether Perkola waived his plea of privilege by appearing at a temporary injunction hearing without having been served with process.2 Perkola, 601 S.W.2d at 111 .

2012Co. , 890 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, no writ) (noting that damages alone do not provide an adequate remedy when the damage award may come too late to save the applicant’s business). [46] Frequent Flyer Depot , 281 S.W.3d at 229 (stating that an adequate remedy is one that is as complete, practical, and efficient to the prompt administration of justice as is equitable relief). [47] 152 Tex. 551, 555 , 261 S.W.2d 549 , 551–52 (1953). [48] Id. at 553 , 261 S.W.2d at 550 . [49] Id. at 553–54, 261 S.W.2d at 551 . [50] Id. at 554 , 261 S.W.2d at 551 . [51] Id. [52] Id. at 558 , 261 S.W.2d

2012Co. , 890 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, no writ) (noting that damages alone do not provide an adequate remedy when the damage award may come too late to save the applicant’s business). [46] Frequent Flyer Depot , 281 S.W.3d at 229 (stating that an adequate remedy is one that is as complete, practical, and efficient to the prompt administration of justice as is equitable relief). [47] 152 Tex. 551, 555 , 261 S.W.2d 549 , 551–52 (1953). [48] Id. at 553 , 261 S.W.2d at 550 . [49] Id. at 553–54, 261 S.W.2d at 551 . [50] Id. at 554 , 261 S.W.2d at 551 . [51] Id. [52] Id. at 558 , 261 S.W.2d

2015Id. at Page 2 of 7 922.

2015Marketshare Telecom, L.L.C. v. Ericsson, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 908, 922 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2006, no pet.).

2026See Ledbetter, 2025 WL 3559022 , at *11 (recognizing in review of temporary injunction that “the trial court judges the credibility of the witnesses and assigns the weight to be given to their testimony”); Elliott, 396 S.W.3d at 228 (reviewing receivership order and explaining that “we may not substitute our judgment on factual matters for that of the trial court unless it is clear from the record that the trial court could reach only one decision”); Lee v. Steele, No. 01-95-00237- CV, 1995 WL 370264 , at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 20, 1995, no writ) (not designated for publicati

2015Finding that the trustee had only been served notice of a temporary injunction hearing—not a receivership hearing—the court held that the temporary injunction hearing did not serve as an adequate substitute for the receivership hearing, as “the record does not show that his request for receivership was ever separately set for hearing.” Id. at 329 .

2025It is well within the trial court’s discretion to preside over preliminary matters, while still “determin[ing] at its earliest opportunity whether it has the constitutional or statutory authority to decide the case before allowing the litigation to proceed.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).

2025The TRO must set the 6 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex.2004). 23 temporary injunction for hearing “at the earliest possible date,” 7 which means the temporary injunction hearing quite often must occur within fourteen (14) days, or where (as here) the removal comes on the eve of the temporary injunction hearing, the court’s options for briefing may very well be even more limited.

2025Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 205 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding), so the State would have to wait until after a temporary injunction hearing to seek this Court’s review, see Tex. Civ.

2022Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 205 (Tex. 2002). the trial court did not hold a full evidentiary hearing on the application; (2) imposed a constructive trust (a) that was beyond the scope of the temporary injunction hearing and (b) in an interlocutory, non-final order, upon assets that are not traceable and upon other property belonging to non-parties; (3) issued a temporary injunction order that does not strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and does not conform with the applicants’ pleadings; and (4) ordered that the executrix (Appellant)

2019Lighting & Power Co., 530 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (recognizing trial court may “impose reasonable limitations upon a litigant’s presentation of evidence in a temporary injunction hearing” as long as limits do not “deprive a party of the right to offer any evidence”).

1990City of Houston v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 530 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.).