In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez v. the State of Texas (In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez 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.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-25-00025-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE BROTHERS PRODUCE OF DALLAS, INC. D/B/A BROTHERS FOOD SERVICE; BROTHERS PRODUCE OF AUSTIN, INC. D/B/A BROTHERS FOOD SERVICE; AND ANDRES GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1
Relators Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. d/b/a Brothers Food Service; Brothers
Produce of Austin, Inc. d/b/a Brothers Food Service; and Andres Gonzalez Hernandez
filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by
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). granting a motion to consolidate. However, relators have now filed an unopposed motion
for dismissal of their petition for writ of mandamus as moot because the trial court has
vacated the consolidation order at issue in this original proceeding.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the unopposed motion for dismissal, and the documents on file, is of the opinion that the
unopposed motion for dismissal should be granted. See In re Contract Freighters, Inc.,
646 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson
County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d
732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we grant the unopposed motion for
dismissal, and we dismiss this original proceeding as moot.
JON WEST Justice
Delivered and filed on the 5th day of May, 2025.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Brothers Produce of Dallas, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; Brothers Produce of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Brothers Food Service; And Andres Gonzalez Hernandez v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brothers-produce-of-dallas-inc-dba-brothers-food-service-texapp-2025.