# State v. Cook United, Inc.

> Texas Supreme Court · January 13, 1971 · 14 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 175

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775671

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Texas, Petitioner, v. COOK UNITED, INC. Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 13, 1971
- **Citations:** 14 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 175; 464 S.W.2d 105; 1971 Tex. LEXIS 297
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Calvert
- **Judges:** Reavley, Calvert, McGee, Walker
- **Cited by:** 141 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775671

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that to comply with Rule 683, a temporary injunction in a general civil case must Agive the reasons why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered@
- explaining that under Rule 683 “it is necessary to give the reasons why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered”
- holding order denying plea in abatement could be attacked in appeal from temporary injunction “only in so far as the questions raised affect the validity of the injunction order”
- holding that it is necessary to give the reasons “why injury will be suffered” if the temporary injunction were not ordered
- noting that, under Rule 683, a temporary injunction must “give the reasons why injury will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered”

## Opinion text

CALVERT, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the judgment rendered.
The requirement in Rule 683 that the reasons for issuing an injunction be stated in the order could hardly be couched in stronger language. It is mandatory. The order in the instant case states no reasons for its issuance. I concur in the judgment here rendered only because I am willing to recognize an exception to the Rule’s requirement in cases involving injunctive orders granted on behalf of the State to restrain the operation of statutorily declared public nuisances. That, in my judgment, is the effect of the majority’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775671. Public record. Not legal advice.