Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Richard Schiller, who does business as Comedy Defensive Driving School, is half owner of International Driver Training. He claims he is the sole director of the company. Jose Feliciano bought the other 50 percent of the stock, but Schiller says the sale had not yet received required approval from the Texas Education Agency. Feliciano and Roger Crabtree say they, too, are directors of IDT and that the sale of stock to Feliciano did not require TEA approval. Schiller sued Feliciano and Crabtree for various business-related torts. Schiller requested both a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction barring Feliciano and Crabtree from committing such acts as keeping Schiller out of IDT’s office, preventing him from accessing computer files and interfering with his business interests. Feliciano and Crabtree agreed to the TRO. At a hearing on the temporary injunction, testimony was limited to ownership of IDT. The only mention of Feliciano’s and Crabtree’s actions was when Feliciano repeatedly denied he’d done anything to interfere with Schiller’s rights or his access to the company. The trial court granted the injunction and signed an order prepared by counsel for all parties. The injunction was not signed by Feliciano’s and Crabtree’s counsel, and it did not state that it was agreed upon. Feliciano and Crabtree appeal. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. There was no evidence presented to support the trial court’s determination that, unless the injunction issued, Schiller would suffer imminent and irreparable harm for which there was no adequate remedy at law. The only testimony addressing injury to Schiller was Feliciano’s statements that the actions sought to be enjoined had never occurred in the past. There was no testimony about the possibility of future actions or the effect of such actions on Schiller. “Given the complete absence of testimony on the issue of harm, we conclude the evidence does not support the trial court’s determination of probable injury and the trial court abused its discretion by granting the injunction.” Feliciano’s and Crabtree’s agreement to the form of the injunction order after the trial court granted the injunction can in no way be considered an agreement to the order’s substance, the court adds. OPINION:Morris, J.; Morris, Moseley and O’Neill, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.