Janus Films, Inc. v. City of Fort Worth
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
- 2026Anna Texas Land, Ltd., and E. Taylor Armstrong, Jr. v. Anacapri Laguna Azure, LLC Tex. App.-Texarkana
- 2025Marvin Glenn Berry and Bonnie Berry as Successor in Interest to Dennis Wayne Berry v. Albert Theodore Powers and Allied Ports LLC Tex. App.
- 2025Panola Operating, LLC and AXE Directional Drilling, LLC v. Ironman Recycling, LLC; SWD East Texas, LLC; And GEP Haynesville II, LLC Tex. App.-Houston [15th Dist.]
- 2025Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General v. Powered by People Tex. App.
- 2024JCS Money Maker, LLC v. Rickey Smith, Individually and as Trustee of the Chad J. Smith 1998 Investment Trust The Jason S. Smith 1998 Investment Trust And the Shana L. Smith 1998 Investment Trust Tex. App.
- 2023Anthony Welch Dba Superior Consulting Group v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Tex. App.
- 2023Jerri Lynn Kirkland v. James Calvin Kirkland Tex. App.
- 2022in the Matter of Bumstead Family Irrevocable Trust Tex. App.
- 2022Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Jaime Masters in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services And the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney Tex. App.
- 2021Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas v. City of San Antonio and County of Bexar Tex. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Janus Films, Inc., Petitioner v. City of Fort Worth et al, Respondents
Attorneys
- Tobolowsky, Hartt, Schlinger & Blalock, Dallas, for petitioner.
- S. G. Johndroe, City Attorney, Fort Worth, for respondent.
This case is before us as an appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction. Petitioner Janus sought an injunction to enjoin the City of Fort Worth from interfering with the exhibition of the film “The Virgin Spring” in Fort Worth. The Censorship Board of that city had refused to grant an unconditional permit to display the film but had conditioned its approval upon the deletion by the petitioner of the so-called “90 second rape scene”. The Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed the action of the trial court in denying the temporary injunction.
In suits for temporary injunctions, the trial judge is endowed with broad discretion to grant or deny the injunction. Railroad Commission vs. Shell Oil Co., 146 Texas 286, 206 S.W. 2d 235. Accordingly, the scope of appellate review in such cases is limited to the narrow question of whether the action of the trial judge in granting or denying the temporary injunction constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. Texas Foundries v. International Moulders & Foundry Workers’ Union, 151 Texas 239, 248 S.W. 2d 460.
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the suit pending a final trial of the case on its merits. Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports, Inc., 152 Texas 551, 261 S.W. 2d 549. In the last cited case, we defined “status quo” as being “the last, actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy”. Applying that definition to the case at bar would result in the status quo to be properly preserved being that time at which petitioner had no permit to display his film, conditional or otherwise. By his petition, petitioner sought to have the board enjoined from interfering with the display of the film in question thus affording him the opportunity to display the film as if he had an unconditional permit.
To have granted the petitioner that relief could quite possibly have rendered the questions in this case moot rather than have preserved them for ultimate decision when the case came on for trial as a suit for permanent injunction. Such a result would defeat the purpose of the temporary injunction proceeding. Thus, we are of the opinion that no abuse of discretion has been shown in denying the injunction.
This opinion is not to be construed as passing on the merits of the case in any respect. Its sole function is to uphold the action of the trial court in denying the temporary injunction. The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
Opinion delivered June 13, 1962.