Hood v. Amarillo National Bank
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
POFF, Justice.
Upon consideration of appellants’ motion for rehearing, we withdraw the opinion and judgment dated December 19, 1990, and substitute the following. In doing so, we overrule appellants’ motion for rehearing.
By two points of error, appellants Hood, Winniford, and McGee (Guarantors), seek review of the Trial Court’s denial of injunc-tive relief. By injunction, they sought to prevent appellee, Amarillo National Bank (ANB), from “directly or indirectly attempting to execute the [¡judgment.” In their first point of error, Guarantors contend the judgment in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Point Lookout West, Inc. v. WhortonTexas Supreme Court · 1987
- Teer v. DuddlestenTexas Supreme Court · 1984
- Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. LindsayTexas Supreme Court · 1990
- Warford v. Childers, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1982
- Etter's Welding, Inc. v. Gainesville National Bank of GainesvilleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hood v. Amarillo National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1991
- Sanchez v. Hester, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1995
- Harwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1994