dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the court’s majority opinion.
The portion of the judgment awarding a permanent injunction is void and should be reversed and rendered for one or more of the reasons as follows:
1. The trial court did not make a finding there was a threat of imminent harm. The trial court must make such finding to support a permanent injunction. Frey v. DeCordova Bend Estates, 632 S.W.2d 877, 881 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1982), affirmed, 647 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.1983); Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield, 805 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1991, writ denied); Green v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 883 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1994, no writ) (a prevailing, successful petitioner for injunc-tive relief must demonstrate the following grounds: (1) the existence of a wrongful act; (2) the existence of imminent harm; (3) the existence of irreparable injury; and (4) the absence of an adequate and realistically complete remedy.); Univ. Interscholastic League v. Buchanan, 848 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex.App.—Austin 1993, no writ); Hues v. Warren Petroleum Co., 814 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist] 1991, writ denied).
The trial court merely made the following conclusion of law:
“1. Absent injunctive relief, defendants are likely to continue to engage in the tortious conduct found by the jury to be in violation of Plaintiff clinics and physicians’ common law and constitutional rights, and such conduct is likely to cause plaintiff clinics and physician irreparable harm.” (Emphasis added)
There is no language in such conclusion which directly stated or implied there was at the time of trial a threat of imminent harm. The Republican National Convention had long since been over as well as the picketing activities the subject of this action. There *89was no threat of imminent harm, and the trial court found none. For this reason alone the injunctive portion of the judgment should be held void and reversed and rendered in favor of the appellants.
The question regarding “imminent harm” cannot be deemed because the appellants submitted jury question and instruction no. 4 to the court asking whether the appellees were subject to imminent harm. The court refused such question and instruction.
2. There was no irreparable harm notwithstanding the finding in the above stated conclusion no. 1. Injunctive relief is not proper when an adequate remedy at law, i.e. a claim for damages, was available. Id. at 530; Mitchison v. Houston I.S.D., 808 S.W.2d 769 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist] 1991, writ denied) (a party demonstrates irreparable harm when he shows that an award of damages a month later will not provide adequate compensation). To state it is likely there will be harm in the future is not to say it is an imminent threat. Further, the appellees recovered a jury verdict in the amount of $1,214,585 not including personal injuries against the appellants. If this type award is not adequate, then it was the will of the jury, which could have made it more. I believe the award is more than adequate under the circumstances. If there are any damages in the future, which is unlikely, another jury will be available to make the appellees whole. Damages awarded by the jury far exceeded any out of pocket expenses of the appellees.
3. The trial court failed to state reasons for its issuance pursuant to Rule 683 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 683 requires the court in every order granting an injunction to set forth the reason for its issuance. Further, the reasons shall be specific in terms and shall describe in reasonable detail and not by reference to the complaint or document, the act or acts sought to be restrained. Rule 683 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
The trial court made the following findings:
1.Defendants’ conduct threatens access to plaintiff clinics by women seeking abortion and other medical services; [in Point of Error 25]
2. Defendants’ conduct threatens the use and enjoyment of plaintiff clinics’ and physicians’ property rights; [in Point of Error 26]
3. Defendants’ aggressive and harassing manner of protesting and sidewalk counseling of clinic patients increases the risk attendant to the abortion procedure; [in Point of Error 27]
4. Defendants’ targeted picketing of plaintiff physicians’ homes threatens and interferes with plaintiff physicians’ right of privacy [;] [in Point of Error 28]
5. Defendants have not abandoned their activities toward plaintiffs, but (1) remain committed to their particular protest tactics and would use them again toward plaintiffs if the circumstances (such as a national media event in Houston) presented itself; (2) have aided and abetted others in continuing to engage in conduct that is either tortious or in violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; and (3) principle (sic) defendants, and those found by the jury to have acted with malice, are either locally based (such as Rescue America and Don Treshman) or have recently increased their organizational presence in Texas (Operation Rescue — National!;] [in Point of Error 29])
6. Despite existing injunctions imposing place and manner restrictions on defendants’ protect activities targeting plaintiff clinics, defendants (or those found by the jury to be acting in concert with them) have continued to engage in protest activity toward some of the clinics using tactics that are harassing to patients and clinic staffs, that is violative of clinics’ common law and constitutional rights, and that threatens safe, accessible abortions for women seeking medical services at plaintiff clinics, [in Point of Error 30]
These findings are conclusions and do not state the act or acts sought to be restrained. They do not state facts which they could even be tested. This is important because the court was stating reasons to enjoin twenty-*90eight different parties. The differing operative facts as to all such parties, including where located, militate against the sweep treatment the court displayed for permanent injunction purposes. The Court failed to state what conduct the appellants were protesting or what they did.
The trial court must state these reasons without any request of the parties. The Court was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as this was a jury case. Rule 296 Texas Rules Civil Procedure specifically provides that findings may be requested in any case tried “without an jury.” Therefore, the reasons for injunction could not be waived for not asking for findings of fact and conclusions of law as suggested by the majority.
4. The Permanent Injunction is unconstitutionally overbroad. The Permanent Injunction portion of the judgment provides in Section E that appellants are prohibited from “demonstrating” within described zones that circumvent nine facilities belonging to appel-lees. “Demonstrating” was defined as “oral or other expression that publicly displays, manifests, or expresses one’s feelings or opinions ... and expressly includes ‘sidewalk counseling.’ ” These zones also extend from the edges of the properties into any adjoining public streets, approximately to the center line of the respective streets adjoining each of the facilities. The zones are shown on plats of each facility attached as exhibits to the judgment. The Planned Parenthood facility also has two protected corridors, fifteen feet wide, extending from two parking lots across the public streets to the facility. The widest zone is thirty-two feet (Women’s Medical Center of N.W. Houston) and the narrowest zone is fifteen feet (AAA Concerned Women’s Center). Similarly, Section I of the judgment provides restrictions pertaining to the five physician appellees prohibiting “congregating, picketing, patrolling, or demonstrating” within thirteen foot zones extending from their respective property lines into the adjoining streets.
The record does not show any evidence that “such measures are essential to preserve the right of clinic access, and that each satisfies fully the standard we have required under the Texas Constitution” as required by Ex Parte Tucci, 859 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex.1993). Tucci held: “Unless such a restriction is proved to be the least restrictive means of guarding against an irreparable and imminent injury, it is an impermissible infringement on our state constitutional right of free expression.” Id.
In Tucci, Rev. Keith Tucci, and six other abortion protestors, had been held in contempt for violating a temporary restraining order previously entered in these proceedings. The parties, four of whom are appellants in this appeal, brought original habeas corpus proceeding in the Texas Supreme Court asserting they had been confined for expression which is protected under article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution (freedom of expression). The temporary restraining order, in part, barred demonstrating within one hundred (100) feet of any of the nine clinics, appellees in this appeal. The relators in Tucci did not attack any of the other provisions of the restraining orders but challenged only the one-hundred foot limitation as unconstitutional. The confinement of re-lators was premised solely on their having disregarded portions of the one-hundred foot limitation. The other provisions of the restraining orders were clearly directed to protecting against the specific injuries alleged by the women, climes and businesses and access by injunctive relief that barred:
[tjrespassing on, physically invading, entering without consent, damaging, sitting in, blocking, impeding or obstructing access to, ingress into or egress from any part of the Planned Parenthood1 facility ..., including the entrances and exits, the parking lots ..., and any of the clinic’s or parking lots’ entrances and driveways.
Additionally, the temporary restraining orders contained four independent provisions to guard against intimidation and harassment that prohibited:
Demonstrating within twenty-five (25) feet of any person seeking access to or leaving the clinic, its parking lots, or intervenors’ businesses or parking lots, or in any way *91impeding such person’s entrance to or exit from the clinic, parking lots or businesses; Physically abusing, grabbing, intimidating, harassing, touching, pushing, shoving, or crowding persons entering or leaving, working at, or using any services at Planned Parenthood’s above-referenced facility or at the intervenors’ businesses; Harassing, intimidating or physically abusing any doctor, health care professional, or other staff member, employee or volunteer who assists in the provision of services at the ... facility; and
Making any sound or noise (whether by mechanical loudspeaker, sound amplification device or otherwise) that is so loud that it disturbs, injures, or endangers the health or safety of any patient or staff person of the ... facility.
In this ease, in an effort to comply with Tucci, the trial court conducted an evidentia-ry hearing on the issues of injunctive relief. The plats of the proposed limited geographical ban were introduced into evidence and attached as exhibits to the judgment. However, there was no evidence introduced at this hearing or during the jury trial that these geographical bans were the least restrictive means available to ensure unimpeded access to clinics and guard against intimidation and harassment. Tucci mandates that such restrictions must be justified by a proper evidentiary showing that such measures are essential to preserve the rights of clinic access and that such restrictions are the least intrusive as to individual liberties. Tucci, 859 S.W.2d at 7.
The judgment contains provisions clearly directed to protecting against the specific injuries alleged by the women and clinics. Injunctive relief bars:
A. Entering without consent upon or damaging any part of the premises, facilities and parking lots of [the nine clinics].
B. Blocking or attempting to block, barricade, or in any other manner obstruct the entrances to, or the premises of [the nine clinics].
C. Inhibiting, impeding, obstructing or interfering with, or attempting to inhibit, impede, or obstruct or interfere with the free and unmolested ingress and egress of persons (either pedestrian or vehicular) to and from the facilities and parking lots and the streets and sidewalks adjacent to the facilities and parking lots of [the nine clinics].
D.Touching, physically abusing, intimidating, or harassing any individual attempting to enter or exit the facilities or parking lots of [the nine clinics].
Section E, as written in the judgment, concerning “demonstrating” violates Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution, as set out in this opinion. However, the above restrictions A through D would be the least restrictive means to protect against the intimidation and harassment complained of. Sections A through D are the least restrictive means that are essential to preserve the right of clinic access or if there is evidence to prove that demonstration-free zones would be the least restrictive means to protect a woman’s right to have an abortion as set out in Tucci at 7.
For the same reasons, the restrictions in Sections F through H, that pertain to the residences of the physicians specifically provide for injunctive relief that would protect the physicians against the conduct complained of. These restrictions are:
. F. Trespassing on, sitting in, blocking or impeding plaintiff physicians, their family members and their guests or invitees from access to, ingress into or egress from any part of plaintiff physicians’ residences.
G. Inhibiting, impeding or attempting to impede or inhibit the free ingress or egress of any person to the streets that provide access to the streets on which the plaintiff physicians’ residences are located;
H. Harassing, threatening, assaulting, or physically abusing plaintiff physicians, their family members, guests or invitees.
However, Section I of the judgment providing for the 13 foot zone is likewise void under Tucci as there was no evidence introduced at the trial or at the hearing on the *92injunction that would prove that such a zone would be the least restrictive means to prevent the harm complained of. The United States Supreme Court has approved prior restraints against free speech. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988). In Frisby, abortion protestors brought suit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a municipal ordinance prohibiting picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual. The Court found that the ordinance did not ban all picketing in residential areas, but only prohibited focused picketing taking place solely in front of particular residences. The ordinance served a significant government interest of protecting residential privacy. An important aspect of such privacy is the protection of unwilling listeners within their homes from the intrusion of objectionable or unwanted speech. The ordinance is “narrowly tailored” to serve that governmental interest, since it targets and eliminates no more than the exact source of “evil” it seeks to remedy: offensive and disturbing picketing focused on a “captive” home audience. It does not prohibit more generally directed means of public communication that may not be completely banned. Id. 487 U.S. at 487-89, 108 S.Ct. at 2504. Although injunctive relief is available to prevent picketing, similar to the picketing in Frisby, Tucci mandates an evidentiary hearing to prove that , a buffer zone, such as is the case here, is the least restrictive means of preventing this harm. Section I could read: “Congregating, picketing, patrolling, or demonstrating in front of the [physician’s] residence” if the court finds this is the least restrictive means of preventing the harm. Id; see also Ex Parte Pierce, 161 Tex. 524, 342 S.W.2d 424, 427 (1961) (Constitutional protection of the right to free speech and free assembly does not license interference with and obstruction of public ways or entrances to and exists from places of business by picketing).
Further, I would reverse and remand the damages portion (including punitive) of the judgment for the following reasons:
The appellants’ complaint that the trial court refused to include in the charge a complete definition of the essential elements of an actionable civil conspiracy as requested has merit. Omitted over objection were the essential elements: (1) one or more overt acts, and (2) damages resulting from the conspiracy. Massey v. Armco Steel Company, 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex.1983); Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist] 1994, writ denied). The essential elements are:
The plaintiff in a civil conspiracy action must show the following elements: (1) two or more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result. Massey, 652 S.W.2d at 934; Bernstein v. Portland Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 850 S.W.2d 694, 705 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied) The “unlawful, overt acts” must be acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Massey, 652 S.W.2d at 934.
In Massey the court held plaintiffs had not alleged a cause of action for conspiracy because of failure to allege an unlawful overt act. Harmful error resulted from such omission because the definition of conspiracy was the basis of appellees’ causes of action. The first two questions to establish liability on the appellants and questions 3 through 9 establishing damages use the term “conspiracy.” It is obvious it was harmful to appellants because a $1,214,585 judgment was rendered against them. This judgment does not include damages for personal injuries, and seems excessive for what was involved. The jury could very well have decided the case differently had the omitted elements been included by the trial judge. The error, in light of the entire record, was reasonably calculated to and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment. Reinhart v. Young, 906 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex.1995).
. Near identical provisions were included in the order applicable to the other clinics.