In Re Alan Eoff v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 14, 2023
Docket13-23-00069-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Alan Eoff v. the State of Texas (In Re Alan Eoff v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Alan Eoff v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00069-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ALAN EOFF

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

On February 21, 2023, relator Alan Eoff, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ

of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing

monetary sanctions against him, ordering a child custody evaluation report to be filed

under seal, and appointing an ad litem for a minor child to serve in the dual role of

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a

relator must establish that an underlying order is void or is a clear abuse of discretion and

there is no adequate appellate remedy. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708,

712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124,

135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proof. See In re H.E.B. Grocery

Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 840.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the limited record provided by relator, the response filed by the real party in interest,

Bonnie Williams, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his

burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.8(a).

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Delivered and filed on the 14th day of April, 2023.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
in Re Nationwide Insurance Company of America
494 S.W.3d 708 (Texas Supreme Court, 2016)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.
492 S.W.3d 300 (Texas Supreme Court, 2016)
In re Garza
544 S.W.3d 836 (Texas Supreme Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Alan Eoff v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-alan-eoff-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.