Windmill Water Supply Corp. v. Perez — Appeal of temporary injunction dismissed as moot after final judgment

Case
Windmill Water Supply Corporation v. Santa Perez, Rogelio Ramirez, Rosie Hill, Richard Gonzales, Diana Olvedo-Karau, and Lydia Carrasco
Court
Texas Fourth Court of Appeals
Judge
Lori Massey Brissette (Greg Abbott, 2024); Adrian A. Spears II (elected 2024); H. Todd McCray (elected 2024)
Date Decided
August 12, 2026
Docket No.
04-26-00265-CV
Topics
Temporary Injunctions; Mootness; Appellate Procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Windmill Water Supply Corporation filed a notice of appeal on April 1, 2026, challenging the trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction. The injunction was intended to preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits.

While the interlocutory appeal was pending, the trial court entered a final judgment on June 26, 2026. The appellate court received that judgment in a supplemental clerk’s record and ordered Windmill to explain why the temporary-injunction appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Windmill acknowledged that an appeal from a temporary injunction becomes moot when the trial court signs a final judgment.

The Court’s Holding

The Texas Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot. It explained that appellate review of a temporary injunction is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the interlocutory order, and that the entry of final judgment while such an appeal is pending renders the appeal moot.

The injunction itself provided that it would cease to be effective upon entry of final judgment. Although Windmill argued that the court should retain the appeal to address subject-matter jurisdiction and the trial court’s failure to stay the proceedings, the court expressed no opinion on those matters. It noted that Windmill’s appeal from the final judgment remained pending and that issues concerning the final judgment could be raised there.

Key Takeaways

  • A pending appeal from a temporary-injunction order becomes moot when the trial court enters final judgment.
  • The injunction’s own terms confirmed that it expired upon entry of the final judgment.
  • The court left jurisdictional and other challenges concerning the final judgment for the separate, pending appeal from that judgment.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces the limited and provisional nature of temporary-injunction appeals. Once a final judgment supersedes the interlocutory order, parties generally must pursue their challenges through an appeal from that final judgment rather than continue litigating the expired injunction.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top