Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Construction Co.
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Michael Ray Mangum v. Jane Doe Tex. App.-El Paso
- 2026In Re Alex Cruz v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-San Antonio
- 2026Charlotte Spragins v. Lunn 34 Cattle Tex. App.-Fort Worth
- 2026City of Sulphur Springs v. Luminant Mining Company, LLC, Luminant Generation Company, LLC, Vistra Corp., and Matthew Goering Tex. App.-Texarkana
- 2025Chad R. Dubois, Kenneth D. Simmons III, Monica Bentzen, and Lance T. Mendoza v. Anesthesia Associates Tex. App.
- 2025Maria Margarita Rojas, Maternal Maternal and Child Healthcare and Research Center LLC D/B/A Clinica Latinoamericana; Clinicas Latinoamericans; Clinica-Waller Latinoamericana; Clinica-Telge Latinoamericana A/K/A Clinica De La Mujer A/K/A Houston BirthHouse v. State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2025Nicholas Kreines, David P. Ryan, Liberty Mineral Partners LLC, Nak Resources INC., and CGR Oil and Gas, LLC v. ES3 Minerals, LLC Tex. App.-Houston [15th Dist.]
- 2025The State of Texas, by and Through the Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. City of San Marcos; Jane Hughson, Mayor of San Marcos; Matthew Mendoza, Saul Gonzales, Alyssa Garza, Shane Scott, Lorenzo Gonzalez, and Amanda Rodriguez, Members of the City Council of San Marcos; Stephanie Reyes, City Manager of San Marcos; And Stan Standridge, Chief of Police of San Marcos; In Their Official Capacities Tex. App.
- 2025Andrew Coney; Mitchell Walker; Brett Udland; Capital City Drug, LLC; And Axia Medical Solutions, LLC v. Prodigy Health, LLC Tex. App.
- 2024Toby Haldeman v. Thomas Posey Tex. App.
Cites 3 cases
- Smith v. Hamby
- University Interscholastic League v. Torres
- Northcutt v. Waren
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
INTERFIRST BANK SAN FELIPE, N.A. Petitioner, v. PAZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., Respondents.
Attorneys
- Jerry L. Schutza, Alexrod, Smith, Komiss & Kirshbaum, Houston, for petitioner.
- W. Briscoe Swan and Leon J. Hursch, Houston, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction enjoining InterFirst Bank San Felipe from foreclosing a deed of trust lien securing payment of a promissory note. On appeal, InterFirst complained that the trial court’s injunction order is void because it does not include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to grant the temporary injunction, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court of appeals concluded the trial court’s failure to include an order setting the matter for trial on the merits did not mandate a dissolution of the injunction.
Rule 683 provides in pertinent part as follows:
Every order granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought.
The requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. When a temporary injunction order does not adhere to the requirements of Rule 683 the injunction order is subject to being declared void and dissolved. E.g., Northcutt v. Warren, 326 S.W.2d 10, 10 (Tex.Civ. App. —Texarkana 1959, writ ref’d n.r.e.); University Interscholastic League v. Torres, 616 S.W.2d 355, 357-58 (Tex.Civ.App—San Antonio 1981, no writ); Smith v. Hamby, 609 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1980, no writ). Because the court of appeals’ decision conflicts with the requirements of Rule 683, we grant the application for writ of error. Pursuant to Rule 133(b), Tex.R.App.P., without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, declare the temporary injunction void and order that it be dissolved.