Court Opinion

ID: 9772077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:06:56.067009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:41.957186
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Justice,
concurring.
This case was originally before this Court on an appeal from the refusal of the trial court to grant a temporary injunction. Huey v. Davis, 556 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.Civ.App.1977), rev’d, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.1978). The opinion by Associate Justice O’Quinn was very thorough and contained an in-depth examination of the law which is involved in this appeal. The opinion was so complete that the Supreme Court found it exceeded the limited issue then before this Court and had, in effect, prematurely decided the case on the merits. Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.1978).
The case was then tried in district court where the trial judge scrupulously followed the law as expressed by this Court in its original opinion.
We assume, arguendo, that the original opinion is not “the law of the case,” because this Court was held by the Supreme Court to have exceeded the proper scope of review in not restricting its opinion to the narrow issue of abuse of authority by the trial court. 4 Tex.Jur.2d Appeal and Error-Civil Cases, Part 2, § 1004 (1974).
Nevertheless, the trial court properly respected and followed the original opinion and I conceive it to be our duty to follow the law as announced at that time and as now expressed in the present majority opinion.
Since I was not on this Court when the original opinion was handed down, my present position is not to be construed as either approving or disapproving the opinions expressed in the original opinion or in the dissent now expressed by Chief Justice Phillips. It is my conviction that, in the interest of the orderly administration of justice, we must now affirm the judgment of the trial court.