Efrem Sewell and Milo Shephard v. HardRiders, Inc, Waverly Nolley, Shannon Mayfield, and Michelle Oxindine

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 23, 2012
Docket14-12-00541-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Efrem Sewell and Milo Shephard v. HardRiders, Inc, Waverly Nolley, Shannon Mayfield, and Michelle Oxindine (Efrem Sewell and Milo Shephard v. HardRiders, Inc, Waverly Nolley, Shannon Mayfield, and Michelle Oxindine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Efrem Sewell and Milo Shephard v. HardRiders, Inc, Waverly Nolley, Shannon Mayfield, and Michelle Oxindine, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Motion Granted in Part; Abatement Order filed August 23, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-12-00541-CV ____________

EFREM SEWELL AND MILO SHEPHARD, Appellant

V.

HARDRIDERS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011-37278

ABATEMENT ORDER

This appeal arises from the grant of a temporary injunction. Appellee asks us to enforce the temporary injunction and hold appellants in contempt. The supreme court has recognized that in cases such as this it is preferable to refer the fact-finding process to the trial court. Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas, 810 S.W.2d 738, 740 (Tex. 1991). Accordingly, we issue the following order:

We ORDER the trial court to hold a hearing on appellee’s motion to enforce the temporary injunction and make such findings as are necessary. The trial court shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make any findings necessary, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a transcribed record of the hearing. The trial court’s findings, if any, shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with this court on or before September 20, 2012.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the trial court's findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this Court’s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schultz v. Fifth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Dallas
810 S.W.2d 738 (Texas Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Efrem Sewell and Milo Shephard v. HardRiders, Inc, Waverly Nolley, Shannon Mayfield, and Michelle Oxindine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/efrem-sewell-and-milo-shephard-v-hardriders-inc-wa-texapp-2012.