City of Houston v. Rose
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
COLEMAN, Justice.
This is a suit in which appellees sought to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance of the City of Houston regulating and licensing massage parlors. The trial court granted a temporary injunction after a hearing and this appeal followed.
The judgment granting the temporary injunction did not set forth the reasons for its issuance as required by Rule 683, Vernon’s Ann.Tex. Rules. A violation of the Rules in this respect has been held reversible error in many cases. Gonzalez v. Rodriguez, Tex.Civ.App., 250 S.W.2d 253; Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10, Tex.Civ.App., writ ref., n.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson TransportsTexas Supreme Court · 1953
- O'Daniel v. LibalCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
- Gonzalez v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Northcutt v. WarenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
- Rothermel v. GoodrichCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1970
- West v. Pennyrich International, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1969
- Brownlee v. KirkwoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965
- Beverly v. BeverlyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1978
- Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of DallasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.