Legal Opinion

City of Houston v. Rose

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 18, 1962No. 13999PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson TransportsTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  2. O'Daniel v. LibalCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
  3. Gonzalez v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1952
  4. Northcutt v. WarenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
  5. Rothermel v. GoodrichCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1970
  2. West v. Pennyrich International, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1969
  3. Brownlee v. KirkwoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965
  4. Beverly v. BeverlyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1978
  5. Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of DallasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API