Legal Opinion

Boren v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 27, 1924No. 2995PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

It is the rule that, when the acts or establishments complained of as working hurt or injury are not nuisanqes per se, but may or may not become so, according to locality,. manner, or use, and the surroundings, it is especially proper to refuse a temporary . injunction when it is uncertain or indefinite or contingent that a nuisance will result, or in c.ases of conflicting evidence as to the fact of a nuisance. 1 High on Injunctions (4th Ed.) § 744. In their brief appellants admit, and do not claim to the contrary, that the alleged establishment complained…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. CookCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
  2. League v. JourneayTexas Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Manchester Terminal Corp. v. Texas TX TX Marine Transportation, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1989
  2. Gulf Refining Co. v. DishroonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
  3. Hornsby v. Crystal Beach ParkCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
  4. Enterprise Crude GP LLC and Enterprise Crude Pipeline, LLC v. Sealy Partners, LLC and Sealy Partners No. 3, LP, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2020
  5. Hornsby v. Crystal Beach ParkCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API