In Re Chantel Elizondo v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Chantel Elizondo v. the State of Texas (In Re Chantel Elizondo 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 13-23-00452-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE CHANTEL ELIZONDO
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1
By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Chantel Elizondo seeks to compel the trial
court to vacate the following orders signed on October 23, 2023: (1) the “Order on Father’s
Motion for Emergency Relief Regarding Travel Authorization”; and (2) the “Order on
Father’s Motion for Alternative Relief.” Relator further seeks to stay all trial court
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). proceedings pending the resolution of this petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.10.
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). The relator must show that (1) the trial
court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re
USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain
mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, and we similarly
deny relator’s request to stay the trial court proceedings.
DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice
Delivered and filed on the 25th day of October, 2023.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Chantel Elizondo v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chantel-elizondo-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.