By Katie Buehler

Law360 (April 9, 2021, 4:43 PM EDT ) The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday a Dallas salon owner won't have to go back to jail to finish out a seven-day sentence for operating her business during the statewide coronavirus shutdown in April 2020, finding the temporary restraining order that's the basis of her punishment is invalid.

In a per curiam opinion, the state's high court said the city of Dallas' requested restraining order against salon owner Shelley Luther, which prohibited her from conducting in-person services at her salon "in violation of State of Texas, Dallas County, and City of Dallas emergency regulations related to the COVID-19 pandemic," didn't include the proper specifics required under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683.

Rule 683 mandates that temporary restraining orders "shall describe in reasonable detail and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained." The Texas Supreme Court said a Dallas County District Court judge failed to comply with the rule by only prohibiting in-person services and not referencing the specific state and local emergency orders that closed some businesses during the beginning of the pandemic.

"The temporary restraining order should have set this out in reasonable detail, without ambiguity, but it didn't," the opinion reads. "Luther could not know without analyzing a multitude of regulations — state, county, and city emergency orders referenced in the temporary restraining order, plus the federal guidelines they referenced — what conduct was prohibited at any given time the temporary restraining order was in effect."

Luther's attorney, Warren V. Norred of Norred Law PLLC, told Law360 on Friday that Luther is "very excited" about the ruling.

He added that now is a time when he and Luther will reevaluate a Dallas County District Court case, spawned by this temporary restraining order and jail sentence, in which Luther claims local officials overstepped their authorities by using the powers delegated to them by the Texas Disaster Act to create new laws and define new crimes.

"Now that we know that jail isn't hanging over her head, we can soberly look at the claims and see if there's a way to avoid trial," Norred said.

Counsel for the city of Dallas declined to comment on the state high court's decision.

Luther, the owner of S&B Hot Mess Enterprises LLC, which does business as Salon a la Mode, was arrested in May after Dallas County District Judge Eric Moyé found her in contempt of court for violating the temporary restraining order prohibiting her from opening her business.

At the time, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's coronavirus-related executive orders prohibited certain businesses, including salons, from operating in an attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Luther opened her salon to customers April 23, 2020, despite Abbott's order, which prohibited salons and other businesses from opening until May 8. Judge Moyé granted Dallas' restraining order against Luther on April 28, 2020, prohibiting her from operating her salon until allowed by the state, but she continued doing so anyway.

The judge found Luther in contempt of court on May 5, 2020, for violating the order and sentenced her to seven days in jail as punishment.

Along with the jail sentence, Judge Moyé ordered Luther and her salon to pay a $500 fine for each of the seven days she operated her salon. He also ordered additional fines of $500 for each day after his May 5 order that the salon remained open through the end of the restraining order on May 7, according to court documents.

Luther filed a petition for writ of mandamus relief with the Texas Supreme Court on May 6, according to court records. The high court granted her temporary relief on May 7 and released her on bond.

Her imprisonment led Abbott to eliminate jail time as a punishment for violating his coronavirus-related executive orders, which had carried fines of up to $1,000 and up to a 180-day jail sentence for violators.

Dallas argued at the Texas Supreme Court that Judge Moyé's restraining order was valid because strict compliance to Rule 683 isn't required for public nuisances, but the high court disagreed.

Luther currently has a state court case pending against the city of Dallas challenging the constitutionality of the city's coronavirus emergency orders.

Luther is represented by Warren V. Norred and C. Chad Lampe of Norred Law PLLC and Briscoe Cain of Fulton Strahan Law Group PLLC.

Dallas is represented by Nicholas D. Palmer and James B. Pinson of the Dallas City Attorney's Office.

The case is In re: Shelley Luther, case number 20-0363, in the Supreme Court of Texas.

--Editing by Emily Kokoll.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.