Temporary Restraining Orders and Injunctions in Texas Business Disputes

By Hank FasthoffJuly 6, 2026

Some business disputes require a court to address conduct before trial. A departing employee may be sending customer data to a competitor. A former owner may be soliciting clients under a disputed covenant. One party may be preparing to transfer property that another party claims to own. A judgment entered months from now provides no protection when the transaction closes, the information spreads, or the property changes hands first.

Texas law provides three principal forms of injunctive relief. A temporary restraining order addresses the period before a prompt hearing. A temporary injunction can govern conduct while the lawsuit proceeds. A permanent injunction follows a decision on the merits. Each form serves a different purpose, and each requires proof tailored to the right at issue.

A TRO Covers the Period Before a Hearing

A temporary restraining order, commonly called a TRO, can restrain conduct for a short period while the court schedules a hearing. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680 permits a court to issue one without notice only when specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before notice and a hearing.

An ex parte order must state the date and hour of issuance, define the threatened injury, explain why the injury is irreparable, and explain why the court acted without notice. It expires within the period set by the court, which can't exceed 14 days. One extension of the same length may follow for good cause, while subsequent extensions require the restrained party's agreement.

Rule 680 also requires the court to set the temporary injunction hearing at the earliest available date. A party restrained without notice may seek dissolution or modification on two days' notice, or on a shorter period allowed by the court. That procedure allows the absent party to challenge the facts, legal theory, scope, and bond promptly.

An application without notice imposes a separate duty on counsel. Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 3.03(a)(3) requires a lawyer in an ex parte proceeding to disclose any unprivileged fact the lawyer reasonably believes the court should know to make an informed decision. The comment identifies a TRO application as an example because the judge hears only one side at that stage.

A Temporary Injunction Requires Evidence

A temporary injunction can govern the parties until trial, but Rule 681 requires notice to the opposing party. The hearing addresses whether the applicant has enough evidence for interim relief, rather than who should win the lawsuit after complete discovery and trial.

In Harley Channelview Properties, LLC v. Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, 690 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2024), the Supreme Court of Texas restated three requirements. The applicant must show a cause of action against the party to be restrained, a probable right to recover after trial, and a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury during the interim. An injury qualifies as irreparable when damages can't adequately compensate it or can't be measured by a certain monetary standard.

The hearing requires competent evidence. In Millwrights Local Union No. 2484 v. Rust Engineering Co., 433 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. 1968), the Supreme Court held that a sworn petition or affidavit doesn't supply the necessary proof unless the parties agree to that procedure. Witness testimony is one method. The parties may also agree to affidavits, and the court may consider documents admitted under the applicable evidence rules.

Your evidence should identify the threatened event and establish when it will occur. Contract language, system logs, messages, account records, transaction documents, customer communications, and witness testimony can connect the legal claim to the requested restraint. Predictions and lawyer argument provide no substitute for evidence admitted at the hearing.

The Order Must Define the Restrained Conduct

Rule 683 requires every restraining order and injunction to state the reasons for issuance, use specific terms, and describe the restrained acts in reasonable detail. The order must state the prohibited or required conduct within its text rather than incorporate a petition, contract, policy, or another document. A temporary injunction must also set the case for trial on the merits.

Specificity affects enforceability because a violation can support contempt. In In re Luther, 620 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. 2021), the Supreme Court held a TRO void because it referred broadly to state, county, and city regulations without identifying the conduct prohibited. A person facing contempt must be able to determine the required conduct from the order itself.

The proposed order should match the evidence and the legal right. A request to protect customer information may identify the files, recipients, systems, and prohibited disclosures. A request concerning property may identify the asset and the transfers restrained. Broad language directing a party to obey a contract or comply with the law leaves too much uncertainty.

The Bond Requires Separate Evidence

For a private applicant, Rule 684 requires security before a TRO or temporary injunction issues. The bond protects the restrained party against sums and costs assessed if the court later dissolves the injunction. The amount therefore depends on the probable harm caused by a wrongful restraint, rather than the value of the applicant's underlying claim alone.

In Kreines v. ES3 Minerals, LLC, No. 15-25-00027-CV (Tex. App. 15th Dist. Dec. 4, 2025), the Fifteenth Court of Appeals held that a bond must be proportionate to the harm the restrained party would suffer if the injunction proved unwarranted. The court rejected a $25,000 bond after the record identified signed contracts and financial interests worth millions. It also placed the evidentiary burden on the restrained party to prove expected losses, while leaving the amount within the trial court's discretion.

Both sides should prepare for the bond issue. An applicant can address duration, lost revenue, mitigation, and the difference between gross receipts and probable loss. The opposing party should support a higher request with contracts, financial records, cost evidence, or testimony rather than a round number offered through counsel.

A Money Claim Rarely Supports an Asset Freeze

A fear that a defendant may spend or transfer money usually supplies no basis for freezing assets before judgment. Texas courts have long rejected injunctions used only to preserve a source of payment for a possible future judgment. Otherwise, an unsecured claimant could obtain prejudgment control over a defendant's property without satisfying the statutes governing attachment, garnishment, or another provisional remedy.

Renovation Gurus, LLC v. Lake Point Assisted Living, LLC applied that rule to funds in a bank account. The court explained that an injunction may be available when the claims have a logical connection to the restrained act or when the claimant asserts a specific contractual or equitable interest in the asset. A lien, trust claim, ownership claim, secured interest, or statute authorizing restraint can therefore support a different result.

The distinction turns on the right asserted. A claim for unpaid invoices ordinarily seeks money from the defendant's general assets. A claim that identified funds are the plaintiff's property, constitute collateral, or represent proceeds subject to a trust concerns the property itself. Your pleadings and proof must establish that property interest before an injunction can preserve it.

Contract and Trade Secret Claims Require Precise Relief

Contract language affects the probable right to recover, but a contractual promise that labels a breach irreparable doesn't bind the court to issue an injunction. Evidence should show how the threatened conduct affects information, customers, property, or another interest that damages can't adequately protect. The requested restraint must also match an enforceable covenant and the conduct supported by the record.

Trade secret law provides a statutory example. Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 134A.003 permits a court to enjoin misappropriation that occurred or is threatened. Any order must protect general knowledge, skill, and experience acquired during employment, and a restriction based on threatened misappropriation can't rest merely on information the person knows. A court may continue relief for a reasonable period after the secret ceases to exist when needed to eliminate a commercial advantage caused by the misappropriation.

Noncompete disputes require the same attention to scope. Business and Commerce Code Section 15.51(c) directs courts to reform an otherwise enforceable covenant when its time, geographic area, or activity restraint is greater than necessary. An injunction should be confined to the enforceable scope after any required reformation, supported by evidence of probable injury during the lawsuit.

Federal intellectual property claims use federal statutes and equitable standards. A state court formulation for a contract claim shouldn't be copied into a copyright or trademark application without checking the governing federal rule. Each claim needs its own liability elements, remedy standard, and evidence.

Temporary Injunction Appeals Use an Accelerated Schedule

Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(4) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, or granting or denying a motion to dissolve one. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1 treats that appeal as accelerated. Section 51.014(b) allows the trial court to proceed toward trial while the appeal is pending.

A conventional TRO ordinarily receives review through a motion to dissolve or, in suitable circumstances, mandamus. Labels don't control the classification. Harley Channelview held that courts examine an order's character and function, so an interim order that commands conduct during the lawsuit may operate as an appealable temporary injunction even when it lacks that title.

Timing can affect whether appellate review provides useful relief. A TRO may expire before an appellate court can act, while a temporary injunction can remain effective through trial. A party challenging either order should also examine preservation, the hearing record, the bond, the trial setting, and compliance with Rules 683 and 684.

A Permanent Injunction Follows a Merits Decision

A permanent injunction can follow trial or another final decision on the merits. Texas uses four general requirements for this relief. The claimant must prove a wrongful act, imminent harm, irreparable injury, and the absence of an adequate remedy at law.

In Huynh v. Blanchard, 694 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. 2024), the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's authority to enjoin a continuing nuisance but reversed in part because the order was broader than necessary to stop it. That decision separates entitlement from scope. Proof of a continuing wrong may support permanent relief, while the final order must confine its commands to the proven right and threatened harm.

Texas standards differ from the four factor federal formulation used in some federal claims, which includes the balance of hardships and public interest. A Texas business dispute shouldn't import that federal test into a state law claim. The governing cause of action and statute determine whether a specialized standard modifies the general Texas requirements.

The Application Should Fit the Threatened Event

Your first assessment should identify the right, the threatened act, the expected timing, and the evidence available now. It should also test whether money can measure and compensate the injury. That analysis determines whether to seek a TRO, proceed on notice to a temporary injunction hearing, pursue another provisional remedy, or prepare the case for a prompt decision on the merits.

Notice strategy depends on the risk. A demand may stop the conduct, narrow the dispute, or create a useful record. It may also prompt a transfer, disclosure, or deletion before the court can act. The facts should determine whether the application proceeds with notice and whether Rule 680 supports an ex parte request.

Preparation should begin with the hearing record and proposed order. Evidence must prove the interim injury, the order must define the conduct, and the bond must address the restraint's probable cost. When those parts describe the same threatened event, the application seeks relief the court can grant and enforce.