Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board v. Association of Taxicab Operators, USA
335 S.W.3d 361
Tex. App.2010Background
- In November 2009, the Airport Board approved a CNG policy granting head-of-the-line dispatch privileges to taxicabs with dedicated CNG engines.
- Association of Taxicab Operators, USA filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the policy as void and unenforceable and sought injunctive relief.
- Association alleged lack of statutory authority and absence of required Dallas/Fort Worth city approvals for the policy.
- Trial court issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the CNG policy; bond set and merits trial scheduled.
- Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal as advisory and improper to delay merits, and condemned delaying tactics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court decide merits on an interlocutory appeal? | Airport Board seeks merits ruling. | Association contends advisory review only. | No merits review; advisory and dismissed. |
| Is postponing merits trial to obtain appellate decision permissible? | Parties agreed to extend trial due to appeal. | Delaying merits for appeal is improper. | Disapproved and rejects delaying tactics. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (three elements for temporary injunction; merits not reviewed on appeal)
- Iranian Muslim Org. v. City of San Antonio, 615 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. 1981) (preliminary injunctions review limits; no merits ruling)
- Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (standard for temporary injunction review)
- Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (reiterated for injunction review framework)
- Transp. Co. of Tex. v. Robertson Transps., Inc., 261 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1953) (merits not determined from injunction hearing)
- Sw. Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones, 327 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. 1959) (status quo relief may require permanent adjudication)
- Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. 2000) (appellate court cannot issue advisory opinions)
- Hiss v. Great N. Am. Cos., 871 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993) (no advisory rulings on merits via injunction appeal)
- Recon Exploration, Inc. v. Hodges, 798 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990) (no advisory opinions; no merit ruling on injunction appeal)
- Reeder v. Intercont'l Plastics Mfg. Co., 581 S.W.2d 497 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1979) (advancement of merits via injunction appeal discouraged)