Navarro Auto-Park, Inc. v. City of San Antonio

580 S.W.2d 339, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 262, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 268
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 14, 1979
DocketB-8148
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 580 S.W.2d 339 (Navarro Auto-Park, Inc. v. City of San Antonio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Navarro Auto-Park, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 580 S.W.2d 339, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 262, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 268 (Tex. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Navarro Auto-Park, Incorporated, our petitioner, brought suit to enjoin the City of San Antonio from taking any further action in the construction of an off-street parking garage in downtown San Antonio. Navar *340 ro sought temporary and permanent injunc-tive relief against the City. After a hearing on the request for a temporary injunction, the trial court denied temporary in-junctive relief. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 574 S.W.2d 582.

We approve the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming the denial of a temporary injunction. Our approval is based on the standard of review described in two recent Supreme Court opinions, Brooks v. Expo Chemical Co., 576 S.W.2d 369 (Tex.1979), and Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.1978). As we stated in both of those opinions, the standard of review in an appeal from a denial of a temporary injunction is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the temporary relief. The sole issue before the trial court is whether the party requesting the relief is entitled to preservation of the status quo of the subject matter pending trial on the merits. Thus, on appeal, the merits of the underlying case are not presented for review. Brooks v. Expo Chemical Co., 576 S.W.2d 369. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s implied finding that petitioner is not entitled to a preservation of the status quo. The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

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

Related

Fairfield Financial Group, Inc. v. Gawerc
814 S.W.2d 204 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
City of Houston v. Hill
792 S.W.2d 176 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Wilson v. United Farm Workers of America
774 S.W.2d 760 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Wylie Independent School District v. TMC Foundations, Inc.
770 S.W.2d 19 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Jolar Cinema of Houston, Inc. v. City of Houston
695 S.W.2d 353 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Clark v. Salinas
628 S.W.2d 51 (Texas Supreme Court, 1982)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1981
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1981
Chevron, U. S. A., Inc. v. City of El Paso
593 S.W.2d 396 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Morris v. Reaves
580 S.W.2d 891 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
580 S.W.2d 339, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 262, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/navarro-auto-park-inc-v-city-of-san-antonio-tex-1979.