Ass’n, 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 191 Cal.Rptr. 104, 106 (1983). “The injury must be actual and substantial, or an affirmative prospect thereof, and not a mere possibility of harm.” Parkem Indus. Servs., Inc., 619 S.W.2d at 430 (citation omitted). It is not enough that the party seeking injunctive relief merely claim irreparable harm; he must come forth with evidence of the irreparability of his harm or inadequacy of any remedy. See City of Las Cruces v. Rio Grande Gas Co., 78 N.M. 350, 352, 431 P.2d 492, 494 (1967) (“The question here is whether Rio Grande [Gas Company] has demonstrated that it will suffer an irreparable injury.”); Tom James Co. v. Mendrop, 819 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex.App.1991); Williams, 704 S.W.2d at 472; Texas Employment Comm’n v. Norris, 636 S.W.2d 248, 253 (Tex.App.1982) (<HOLDING>). {20} Upon reviewing the evidence the County
holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay holding that trial court erred in granting ex parte temporary injunction prohibiting marketing activities of defendant company because there had been no showing that plaintiff company would likely suffer irreparable harm or lacked an adequate remedy at law holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction