Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Hajek v. Bill Mowbray Motors, Inc.

Hajek v. Bill Mowbray Motors, Inc.

645 S.W.2d 827, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5331
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 14, 1982
Docket2620cv
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 645 S.W.2d 827 (Hajek v. Bill Mowbray Motors, Inc.) 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
Hajek v. Bill Mowbray Motors, Inc., 645 S.W.2d 827, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5331 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION

GONZALEZ, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction, enjoining appellant-defendant James Hajek, from publishing and circulating defamatory statements which were painted on a vehicle appellant purchased from appellee-plaintiff Bill Mow-bray Motors, Inc.

The issue is whether the temporary injunction constitutes an impermissible restraint on appellant’s First Amendment rights. We affirm.

*829 In early 1981, appellant special ordered a new 1981 Dodge Maxi van. Appellant explained to salesman, Jerry Roberts, that he wanted something economical but still capable of carrying small items. Shortly after taking delivery, appellant returned to the dealer and complained that the van was underpowered. Appellant had modified the van by installing a windshield visor, a vent on the roof and a plastic air dam on the bottom of the vehicle. Roberts accompanied appellant on a test drive and concluded that although underpowered in certain situations, the van performed in accordance with factory specifications.

On April 11,1981, appellant wrote Chrysler Corporation, complaining of poor performance and inquired about a 30-day money back guarantee which Chrysler had previously used to promote sales. Chrysler informed appellee of this letter. Appellee, contacted appellant and offered to exchange the van for a different one, but Hajek rejected the offer because of appel-lee’s insistence on a depreciation allowance.

Appellant then painted the complained of statements on his van. The statements were painted in bright yellow, with approximately foot-high letters, on appellant’s brown van:

(1) On the left side:
“Jerry Roberts sold this (representation of a lemon) Disaster (representation of a lemon) At Bill Mowbray Motors Inc. Help! It’s a Dog!”

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

Related

in Re George Green and Garlan Green
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Gilstrap v. State
945 S.W.2d 192 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Fred G. Brown, D/B/A National Parakleen Co., and Micro-Bac International, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Petrolite Corporation, Cross-Appellee
965 F.2d 38 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
Brown v. Petrolite Corp.
Fifth Circuit, 1992
Bradbury v. Scott
788 S.W.2d 31 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Musser v. Smith
690 S.W.2d 56 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Hajek v. Bill Mowbray Motors, Inc.
647 S.W.2d 253 (Texas Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
645 S.W.2d 827, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hajek-v-bill-mowbray-motors-inc-texapp-1982.