Vantage Bank Tex. v. Gonzalez

5 Citing cases

  1. In re De La Rosa

    No. 13-20-00577-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 6, 2022)

    See Id. ("If a temporary injunction order fails to comply with the requirements of rule 683 [by failing to include the reasons for its issuance,] it is void.") (quoting Indep. Cap. Mgmt., L.L.C., 261 S.W.3d at 795); see also Vantage Bank Tex. v. Gonzalez, No. 13-19-00265-CV, 2020 WL 1615662, at *3 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  2. Quintanilla v. Rosa

    No. 13-20-00575-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 22, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Similarly, in Vantage Bank Texas v. Gonzalez, we held that even if the trial court concluded the party seeking the injunction would suffer irreparable harm, the injunction was void if the court did not recite the facts and include an explanation supporting its conclusion. See No. 13-19-00265-CV, 2020 WL 1615662, at *3 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Good Shepherd Hosp., Inc. v. Select Specialty Hosp.-Longview, Inc., 563 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2018, no pet.) ("If a temporary injunction order fails to comply with the requirements of rule 683 [by failing to include the reasons for its issuance, ] it is void.")). Here, the temporary injunction does not contain any statement explaining the reasons for its issuance, and it does not set a trial date.

  3. City of Brownsville v. Brownsville GMS, Ltd.

    NUMBER 13-19-00311-CV (Tex. App. May. 6, 2021)

    A temporary injunction that fails to set the case for trial on the merits is subject to being declared void and dissolved. See Qwest Commc'ns Corp., 24 S.W.3d at 337; InterFirst Bank San Felipe, 715 S.W.2d at 64; Conway v. Shelby, 432 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.); Conlin v. Haun, 419 S.W.3d 682, 687 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); see also Vantage Bank Tex. v. Gonzalez, No. 13-19-00265-CV, 2020 WL 1615662, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); Reiss v. Hanson, No. 05-18-00923-CV, 2019 WL 1760360, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). Nevertheless, the assigned judge had the ability to correct this defect and did so with its subsequent August 13, 2019 order setting the case for trial.

  4. McIlhargey v. Hager

    NUMBER 13-20-00407-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 18, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    A temporary injunction that fails to meet the requirements of Rule 683 is subject to being declared void and dissolved. See Qwest Commc'ns Corp., 24 S.W.3d at 337; InterFirst Bank San Felipe, 715 S.W.2d at 64; Hoist Liftruck Mfg., Inc. v. Carruth-Doggett, Inc., 485 S.W.3d 120, 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.); Conway v. Shelby, 432 S.W.3d 377, 381 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.); Conlin v. Haun, 419 S.W.3d 682, 687 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); see also Vantage Bank Tex. v. Gonzalez, No. 13-19-00265-CV, 2020 WL 1615662, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Apr. 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); Reiss v. Hanson, No. 05-18-00923-CV, 2019 WL 1760360, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). In Senter Investments, L.L.C. v. Veerjee, 358 S.W.3d 841, 845-46 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.), the Dallas Court of Appeals held that at least some of the requirements of Rules 683 and 684, such as the requirement for a trial date, are inapplicable to a temporary injunction issued in a case that has been compelled to arbitration.

  5. Edinburg Inv. v. Rodriguez

    NUMBER 13-20-00354-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 22, 2020)

    A trial court's grant or denial of a temporary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Henry v. Cox, 520 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Tex. 2017) (citing Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002); InterFirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986); Super Starr Int'l LLC v. Fresh Tex Produce, LLC, 531 S.W.3d 829, 838 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2017, no pet.); Vantage Bank Tex. v Gonzalez, No. 13-19-00265-CV, 2020 WL 1615662, *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi- Edinburg April 2, 2020, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it rules in an arbitrary manner or without reference to guiding principles and rules.