Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Savings Ass'n

7 Citing cases

  1. In re Shields

    190 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Granting writ of injunction pending appellate court's determination of appeal of trial court's order dissolving injunction and stating the court made "no conclusions on the merits as to the contentions of the parties reflected in the record"

    Therefore, we conclude an injunction should be granted to preserve our jurisdiction over the subject of the pending interlocutory appeal while we decide its merits. See Madison, 42 S.W.2d at 86 (explaining correctness of issuing temporary restraining order to prevent appellants' ouster from homestead before court could decide appeal); Reyes v. Atkins, 619 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1981, orig. proceeding) (declining to reconsider issuance of temporary injunction preventing sale of property until appeal decided); Valley v. Patterson, 614 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1981, no writ) (holding that appellate court had jurisdiction to grant injunction to stay proposed trustee's sale to preserve subject matter of appeal and protect court's jurisdiction); Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass'n, 602 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1980, orig. proceeding) (issuing temporary injunction to enjoin respondents from selling property until appeal resolved). Briefs in the interlocutory appeal have not been filed.

  2. In re Lasik Plus of Tex., P.A.

    NO. 14-13-00036-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 5, 2013)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that an appellate court has the authority to issue a writ of injunction to enforce its own jurisdiction but not to protect the status quo pending trial or to protect a party from damage

    See, e.g. In re Texas Ass'n of Sports Officials, No. 03-10-00029-CV; 2010 WL 392342 at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 5, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (subject matter of appeal was independent status of sports officiating organization, which would be rendered moot if sports contests took place under the challenged regulatory agency while the appeal was pending); In re Teague, No. 02-06-00033-CV; 2006 WL 302123 at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 6, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (demolition of structure pending appeal of plea to the jurisdiction would render the appeal moot); Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass'n, 602 S.W.2d 90, 92 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1980, orig. proceeding) (writ of injunction issued to prevent trustee's sale of land because sale of land was the subject matter of the appeal). LasikPlus also cites cases for the proposition that the "intrinsic value of goodwill and market share" are intangible assets that have been deemed appropriate for protection through writs of injunction.

  3. In re Pickett

    No. 07-10-00329-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2010)

    The jurisdiction of a court of appeals to grant injunctive relief is limited to preserving or enforcing its jurisdiction over the merits of a pending appeal and not for the purpose of granting relief on equitable grounds nor for protecting a litigant. See Pace v. McEwen, 604 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1980, no writ); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (Vernon 2004); Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass'n, 602 S.W.2d 90, 91-92 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1980, no writ). See also Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989) (writ of injunction issues to enforce or protect appellate court's jurisdiction).

  4. Robinson v. Saxon Mortgage

    Nos. 03-05-00676-CV, 03-06-00058-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 28, 2006)

    Therefore, we will require Robinson to post security to maintain the injunction. See Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass'n, 602 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1980, orig. proceeding); Pendleton Green Assocs. v. Anchor Sav. Bank, 520 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1975, orig. proceeding); Riverdrive Mall, Inc. v. Larwin Mortgage Investors, 515 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1974, orig. proceeding); see also Tex.R.App.P. 43.6 ("court of appeals may make any other appropriate order that the law and the nature of the case require"); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 21.001 (West 2004) (court has all powers necessary to exercise its jurisdiction and enforce its lawful orders). Because of the fact questions involved, we abate the causes and remand them to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings and recommendations regarding the appropriate amount and form of the security to be imposed.

  5. In re Teague

    No. 02-06-033-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2006)   Cited 7 times

    Having determined that demolition of the structure on Teague's property would interfere with this court's subject matter jurisdiction in cause number 02-06-00032-CV by rendering the appeal moot, we grant the relief requested in Teague's petition for writ of injunction, conditioned upon Teague posting a bond in the amount of $1,000. See Reyes, 619 S.W.2d at 28 (requiring relator to post bond of $5,000 during pendency of appeal); Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass'n, 602 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1980, orig. proceeding) (enjoining sale of stock pending appeal but "to protect against any inequity," requiring bond). Until this court has determined the appeal, or until otherwise ordered by this court, the City is restrained from • enforcing or in any manner effectuating the provisions of Order No. D-04-05, issued by the City Council on December 13, 2005, that allow the City to demolish the structure, clean and grade the lot, and establish a lien on the property, and both the City and Teague are restrained from

  6. Onoray Davis Trucking Co. v. Lewis

    635 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times
    In Davis the appeal bond was timely filed however, since the trial court clerk was awaiting receipt of the appeal bond before commencing preparation of the transcript, the transcript was not prepared and ready when due.

    Just as this court is not required to set a bond pursuant to injunctions issued to protect its jurisdiction under the auspices of Article 1823 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. (Vernon 1964), we hold that the Probate Court was not required to set bond under the facts of this case. See Collier v. Central National Bank, 564 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1978, no writ); Sonny Arnold, Incorporated v. Sentry Savings Association, 602 S.W.2d 90 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1980, no writ). Article 1970-110a § 6 does not require a bond upon issuance of an injunction. Appellant's rights are fully protected and preserved without a bond in this case as the assets remain under the jurisdiction of the Probate Court.

  7. Sonny Arnold v. Sentry Sav. Assn

    615 S.W.2d 333 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981)   Cited 11 times

    To protect our jurisdiction, we enjoined a sale under the deed of trust provision during the pendency of the appeal. Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass'n, 602 S.W.2d 90 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1980, no writ). The litigants characterize the provision as a "due on sale" clause, although Sentry Savings Association and Lorin Kumley submit that the provision is better viewed as an "optional acceleration" clause.