Karamchandani v. Ground Technology, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C14-83-810CV,C14-83-810CV |
| Citation | 678 S.W.2d 580 |
| Parties | Nand KARAMCHANDANI, Appellant, v. GROUND TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. (14th Dist) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Spencer H. Gardner, Houston, for appellant.
Clinton P. Hackney, William J. Joseph, Jr., Edward S. Hubbard, Joseph J. Slama, Houston, for appellee.
Before PAUL PRESSLER, MURPHY and SEARS, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. Appellant had filed suit seeking liquidation of appellee's assets. As a forty percent stockholder in appellee, appellant had access to information concerning appellee's clients. On or about September 17, 1983, George C. Stradley, a client of appellee, received an unsigned, undated letter requesting his assistance in the suit. Attached was a copy of the petition which had been filed. A similar letter and attachment were received by the Construction Division of the Department of Public Works for the City of Houston, from whom appellee receives orders for over fifty percent of its work. On September 22, appellee filed an application for a temporary restraining order and injunction to enjoin appellant from writing letters to clients of appellee which would interfere with their contractual relationships. The injunction was granted on November 9. We affirm.
Appellant presents four points of error. In his first two points, he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the temporary injunction because it constituted a restraint on his freedom of publication in violation of the Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 8. Appellant also argues that an injunction is an improper action to attempt to create a prior restraint on freedom of speech and publication. We disagree.
In support of his position, appellant relies on Hajek v. Bill Mowbray Motors, Inc., 647 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.1983) and Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 91 S.Ct. 1575, 29 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971). In Hajek, the Texas Supreme Court reversed an injunction prohibiting Hajek from driving an automobile with a message painted on all four sides that the dealership had sold him a "lemon." In Keefe, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an injunction could not be granted against a community organization for distributing informational leaflets to the public critical of a real estate broker's activities. Peaceful distribution of this type of informational literature to the public is protected by the First Amendment.
These cases are distinguishable. Here the injunction was granted to prevent harm from private communication, and to preserve the status quo. The communication was to specific individuals with the intention of coercing them to discontinue business with appellee. Information concerning those to whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christensen v. Integrity Ins. Co., A14-85-337-CV
...v. International Molders and Foundry Workers' Union, 151 Tex. 239, 248 S.W.2d 460 (1952); Karamchandani v. Ground Technology, 678 S.W.2d 580 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ dism'd). Abuse of discretion is more than mere error; it amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable action. Park......
-
Ron v. Ron
...damage to his reputation in the industry and because of his inability to borrow funds"); Karamchandani v. Ground Tech., Inc. , 678 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ dism'd) (same when there was sufficient "evidence that appellant attempted to interfere with appellee......
-
Amalgamated Acme Affiliates v. Minton
...a decision with facts that parallel this case, the court upheld a temporary injunction. Karamchandani v. Ground Tech., Inc., 678 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Nand Karamchandani, a stockholder, filed suit seeking liquidation of Ground Technology'......
-
Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Const. Co.
...City of Spring Valley v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 484 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.1972); Karamchandani v. Ground Technology, Inc., 678 S.W.2d 580 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ dism'd w.o.j.). The purpose of issuing an injunction is to deter, not to punish, and to prevent imminent h......