Higginbotham v. Clues, C14-86-759-CV
| Decision Date | 16 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. C14-86-759-CV,C14-86-759-CV |
| Citation | 730 S.W.2d 129 |
| Parties | Bobby HIGGINBOTHAM, d/b/a Higginbotham Enterprises, Inc., and Higginbotham Enterprises, Inc., Appellants, v. Priscilla A. CLUES, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Gordon R. Cooper, II, Houston, for appellants.
Frank C. Farris, Houston, for appellee.
Before JUNELL, SEARS and DRAUGHN, JJ.
Appellants Bobby Higginbotham and Higginbotham Enterprises, Inc., appeal the trial court's order granting appellee Priscilla A. Clues a temporary injunction that prevents appellant from operating his business under the name, Exclusive Temporaries, Inc. Without reaching the merits of appellant's appeal, we are forced to reverse the trial court and dissolve the injunction.
Rule 683 of the Texas rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Every order granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought.
A copy of the order granting the temporary injunction is contained in the record on appeal. The order includes a sentence that contains spaces in which the date of the trial on the merits is to be held. Although the trial judge signed the Order, he did not fill in the portion of the order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought. The record does not reflect that either of the attorneys in this case brought this problem to the court's attention.
The Texas Supreme Court held in InterFirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Construction Company, 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex.1986) that the requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. When a temporary injunction order does not adhere to the requirements of Rule 683, the injunction order is subject to being declared void and dissolved. Though the Texas Supreme Court has clearly and expressly held that Rule 683 mandates that a temporary injunction must be reversed and dissolved if a date setting the cause for trial on the merits is not included in the order, we continue to receive appeals from orders granting temporary injunctions in which the order does not contain the required date. The mandate of the rule is clear: a date for trial on the merits is essential. Because the trial court failed to include a date setting the cause for trial on the merits, we reverse the court and order the temporary injunction dissolved.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intern. Broth. of Elec v. Becdon Const.
...dism'd w.o.j.); Keck v. First City Nat'l Bank of Houston, 731 S.W.2d 699, 700 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ); Higginbotham v. Clues, 730 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). But see Emerson v. Fires Out, Inc., 735 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, no......
-
Eog Resources, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 04-01-00463-CV.
...Christi 1990, mandamus motion overruled) (holding injunction order void for failing to contain required trial date); Higginbotham v. Clues, 730 S.W.2d 129, 129 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (stating injunction order violates rule 683 because failed to include date for trial ......
-
Tex. Black Iron, Inc. v. Arawak Energy Int'l Ltd.
...void and dissolved." InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co. , 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam); Higginbotham v. Clues , 730 S.W.2d 129, 129 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ).The trial court recited that absent injunctive relief Arawak will be irreparabl......
-
360 Degree Communications Co. v. Grundman, 06-96-00064-CV
...Nat'l Bank, 731 S.W.2d 699, 700 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) ("mandatory and must be strictly followed"); Higginbotham v. Clues, 730 S.W.2d 129, 129 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) ("[t]he mandate of the rule is clear: a date for trial on the merits is In li......