Background
In 2019, Luminant conveyed approximately 5,000 acres at an abandoned coal and lignite mine to the City of Sulphur Springs. The deed contained a restrictive covenant barring commercial production, generation, or storage of electricity on the property and the siting of a commercial power station or energy-storage facility.
In 2025, the City sought release from the restriction so the property could be developed as a data center with an on-site power plant. Luminant indicated that it might remove the restriction in exchange for significant compensation, including an “extraordinarily aggressive all-cash bid,” but rejected the City’s proposal. After the City sued to invalidate or avoid the covenant, Luminant sought injunctive relief. The trial court temporarily enjoined the proposed use pending a September 2026 trial, and the City pursued an interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court of appeals declared the temporary injunction void, ordered it dissolved, and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the injunction order did not satisfy Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 because it failed to state specific, nonconclusory facts explaining why Luminant would suffer irreparable injury without interim relief.
The majority did not decide the parties’ competing interpretations of the restrictive covenant or whether an injunction was otherwise warranted on the evidentiary record. It emphasized that Rule 683 requires the necessary reasons to appear in the order itself. Given Luminant’s willingness to consider relinquishing the covenant for a substantial cash payment, the order needed to explain why monetary damages could not adequately compensate Luminant and why any doctrine dispensing with proof of irreparable injury applied to these circumstances. Justice van Cleef dissented and would have affirmed the injunction as sufficiently specific.
Key Takeaways
- A temporary-injunction order must identify specific facts showing why irreparable injury will occur; conclusory statements about loss of a bargained-for property right are insufficient.
- A court cannot cure a Rule 683 deficiency by relying on evidence or reasoning found elsewhere in the record because the required reasons must appear in the injunction order itself.
- The decision does not resolve the restrictive covenant’s meaning or determine whether Luminant may obtain a properly supported injunction on remand.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores the strict drafting requirements for temporary injunctions in Texas, including disputes involving real property and restrictive covenants. Even when precedent may permit injunctive relief based on an intended covenant violation, the order must explain why that rule applies to the case’s particular facts.
For litigants, evidence suggesting that a claimed property right has an ascertainable cash value can make a specific explanation of irreparable injury especially important. Failure to include that explanation in the order can result in dissolution without an appellate ruling on the underlying merits.