Leighton v. Rebeles, 343 S.W.3d 270

Rebeles sued Leighton to wind up a partnership; jury found existence of a partnership.
The trial court signed an Interlocutory Order appointing a special master and enjoining parties from certain conduct regarding partnership property during winding up.
Leighton challenged the injunction as beyond scope and not supported by pleadings or evidence; bond was not provided.
The Interlocutory Order incorporated the jury verdict and directed a special master to report on partnership property valuation by a set date and mediation after the report.
The court lacked a set trial date for the merits of ultimate relief, and Rule 683 requirements for injunctions were not satisfied.
This interlocutory appeal concerns the validity of the temporary injunction portion; the court ultimately holds the injunction void and dissolves it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the temporary injunction complies with Rule 683.	Leighton argues the injunction fails Rule 683 requirements.	Rebeles contends court had authority to issue injunction under related codes.	Injunction void for failure to meet Rule 683 requirements.

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (standard for temporary injunction appeal/discretion)
Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2000) (mandatory trial-date requirement for injunctions)
EOG Resources, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 75 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (bond and trial-date considerations in injunctions)
Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (limits on appellate review of injunctions)
Elliott v. Lewis, 792 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990) (status quo preservation in injunctions)
Markel v. World Flight, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 74 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996) (limitation of review to appealable injunction provisions)