Menna v. Romero

Court of Appeals of Texas

Menna v. Romero

48 S.W.3d 247, 2001 WL 193626

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 16, 2001

Docket04-99-00475-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 48 S.W.3d 247 (Menna v. Romero) 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

Menna v. Romero, 48 S.W.3d 247, 2001 WL 193626 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

SARAH B. DUNCAN, Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. On its face, the injunction constitutes a prior restraint on speech; it is overly broad; and it is not supported by evidence of imminent irreparable harm. See, e.g., Market v. World Flight, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 74 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ). Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s orders and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to refer the case to arbitration.

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

SARAH B. DUNCAN, Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. On its face, the injunction constitutes a prior restraint on speech; it is overly broad; and it is not supported by evidence of imminent irreparable harm. See, e.g., Market v. World Flight, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 74 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ). Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s orders and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to refer the case to arbitration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 S.W.3d 247, 2001 WL 193626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menna-v-romero-texapp-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack