Inc. v. Interwest Sav. Ass’n, 717 S.W.2d 452, 454 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1986, no writ). An injunction that fails to identify the harm that will be suffered if it does not issue must be declared void and be dissolved. Moreno v. Baker Tools, 808 S.W.2d at 210; Hermann Hosp. v. Thu Nga Thi Tran, 730 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). This rule operates to invalidate an injunction even when the complaining party fails to bring the error to the trial court’s attention. Hopper v. Safeguard Business Systems, 787 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1990, no writ); Courtlandt Place Historical Foundation v. Doerner, 768 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ) (citing Interfirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Const., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex.1986) (<HOLDING>)). The injunction in the instant case does not
holding that courts must strictly adhere to title viis procedural requirements and stating that these requirements are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants holding  2513 to be jurisdictional and therefore must be strictly construed holding pcra time limits are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign holding that requirements of rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed