Schulman v. City of Houston
| Decision Date | 08 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A--11738,A--11738 |
| Citation | 412 S.W.2d 34 |
| Parties | AI SCHULMAN et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF HOUSTON et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Joseph D. Jamail and John Gano, Houston, for petitioners.
Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Alton F. Curry, DeLange, Hudspeth, Pitman & Katz, M. Marvin Katz, Eugene J. Wilson, William A. Olson, City Atty., and Homer T. Bouldin, Trial Supervisor, Houston, for respondents.
ON REHEARING OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
This is a temporary injunction case. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed upon the express holding that the trial court had not 'abused its discretion in denying appellants' (petitioners') application for (temporary) injunction'. 406 S.W.2d 219. Upon original submission, we approved this holding and refused the application for writ of error, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Upon rehearing, petitioners complain of the following statement in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals:
This statement must be construed in context with others appearing in the opinion. We do not construe the opinion as holding that petitioners may not under any circumstances maintain the present suit because of an absence of a justiciable interest.
Petitioners' motion for rehearing is overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freedman v. Briarcroft Property Owners, Inc.
...and matters of public policy. Schulman v. City of Houston, 406 S.W.2d 219 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.), per curiam, 412 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.1967). Precedents drawn from various cases are usually of little value because of the differences in the facts and circumstances. Every cas......
-
Conner v. Smith, 420
...Orsinger v. Schoenfeld, Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W.2d 561; Schulman v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 406 S.W.2d 219, 225, wr. ref. n.r.e., 412 S.W .2d 34. It is clear from the above authorities that an injunction will not properly issue before construction and operation where the parties only f......
-
Inwood Forest Community Imp. Ass'n v. R. J. S. Development Co., Inc.
...S.W.2d 911 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1968, no writ); Schulman v. City of Houston, 406 S.W.2d 219 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1966), aff'd 412 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.1967). In order for appellants to have raised a fact question on the issue of nuisance, they must have shown that the operation and constru......
-
McAshan v. River Oaks Country Club
...not a nuisance per se is not ground for an injunction. Schulman v. Houston, 406 S.W.2d 219 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1966, writ ref. 412 S.W.2d 34). The evidence did not show as a matter of law that the construction would damage the McAshans, nor did it prove as a matter of law that the construc......