A trial court’s refusal to issue a preliminary injunction is an appealable order. Under Rule 4(a)(1)(A), a party “can appeal from ‘any interlocutory order granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to dissolve or to modify an injunction.’ See Baldwin County Elec. Membership Corp. v. Catrett, 942 So. 2d 337, 344 (Ala. 2006). The standard for reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is whether the trial court acted outside its discretion in granting or denying the preliminary injunction. See also Watson v. Watson, 910 So. 2d 765, 768 (Ala. 2005).” Folsom v. Stagg Run Development, LLC, No. 2061126 (Ala. Civ. App. Sept. 9, 2008).
Because “the trial court denied Folsom’s request for a preliminary injunction, . . . we must review the record to see if the trial court’s denial of Folsom’s request for injunctive relief was outside its discretion, i.e., whether ‘the trial court committed a clear or palpable error, which, if left uncorrected, would result in a manifest injustice.’ Watson, 910 So. 2d at 768. Under TFT, we must examine whether the trial court could have correctly determined that Folsom did not prove one of the required elements: that he was likely to prevail upon the merits, that there was a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted, and that the threatened injury to Folsom would outweigh the harm the injunction might cause Stagg Run. We note that Folsom needed to prove all the elements set forth in TFT to obtain the preliminary injunction; if the trial court could properly have determined that Folsom failed to prove any element, we must affirm the trial court’s order denying his request for injunctive relief.”