Smith Law Group, P.C. recently prevailed in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the relator was held in contempt of court for violating a temporary injunction. SLG was retained after the trial court found the client violated provisions in an order banning him from (1) “making or initiating any withdrawals or transfers any [company] bank accounts, including, but not limited to, the Wells Fargo Account as defined in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition”; and (2) “contacting any of [the company’s] investors, or potential investors, or any other persons doing business with or potentially a participant in [the company’s business], except as authorized by [the client’s opponent in the litigation].” The trial court sentenced the client to 125 days in jail.
SLG founder D. Todd Smith filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, along with a motion to set bond. The Third Court of Appeals granted the motion and released the client on bond while it considered the petition.
On the merits, the Third Court concluded that the temporary injunction failed to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683, which requires specificity in such orders. That violation rendered both the temporary injunction and the contempt order void. Consequently, the appellate court granted the client’s request for habeas relief, vacated the contempt order, and ordered the client discharged from custody and released from the bond.
In re Krueger, No. 03-12-00838-CV, 2013 WL 2157765 (Tex. App.—Austin May 16, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (slip opinion available here).[post_footer]