Smith v. Hamby, 18342
Decision Date | 04 December 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 18342,18342 |
Citation | 609 S.W.2d 866 |
Parties | Lou A. SMITH, Appellant, v. Keith Jennings HAMBY, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is an interlocutory appeal challenging the propriety of a temporary mandatory injunction. Upon the application of Keith Jennings Hamby, the trial court ordered Lou A. Smith, to vacate possession of the premises in dispute pending outcome of trial as to title. Smith has appealed.
We reverse and dissolve the temporary injunction.
We quote from the pertinent portion of the Order for Temporary Injunction:
(Emphasis ours.)
Tex.R.Civ.P. 683 provides:
We hold that the trial court's order does not satisfy the requirement that the order set forth reasons for its issuance.
The trial court does give reasons for his decision but the reasons he gives are not legally sufficient. The recitation of the order relates...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Iac, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
...ordered. Cook United, Inc., 464 S.W.2d at 106, Transp. Co. of Tex. v. Robertson Transp., 152 Tex. 551, 261 S.W.2d 549, 553 (1953); Hamby, 609 S.W.2d at 868. The reasons given by the trial court for granting or denying a temporary injunction must not be mere conclusionary statements. Int'l B......
-
Martin v. Linen Systems for Hospitals, Inc.
...for granting or denying a temporary injunction must be specific and legally sufficient, and not be merely conclusory statements. Smith v. Hamby, 609 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Civ.App.--Ft. Worth 1980, no writ); Charter Medical Corp. v. Miller, 547 S.W.2d 77 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1977, no writ). Under......
-
David Jason West and Pydia, Inc. v. State
...issuance); University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1981, no writ) (same); Smith v. Hamby, 609 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1980, no writ) (same). We need not address that issue here, ...
-
University Interscholastic League v. Torres
...or denying a temporary injunction must be specific and legally sufficient, and must not be mere conclusionary statements. Smith v. Hamby, 609 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1980, no writ); Charter Medical Corp. v. Miller, 547 S.W.2d 77, 78 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1977, no writ). Fail......