Butler v. Roome

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court held that a preliminary injunction issued in a dispute over operation of a bail-bonding business failed to comply with Ala. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). Because the trial court’s order did not state the reasons for issuing the injunction or describe the restrained acts with sufficient specificity, the court reversed the order, dissolved the injunction, and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. Rule 65(d)(2) is mandatory and requires every order granting an injunction to state the reasons for issuance, be specific in its terms, and describe in reasonable detail the acts sought to be restrained.
2. Because the order did not comply with Rule 65(d)(2), the trial court exceeded the scope of its discretion, and the preliminary injunction had to be dissolved.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the preliminary-injunction order complied with Rule 65(d)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., by stating the reasons for its issuance and describing the restrained acts with sufficient specificity.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that did not comply with Rule 65(d)(2).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded