in Re Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P.

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P.

DecidedMay 30, 2013

Docket09-13-00168-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P. (in Re Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P.) 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 Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P., (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-13-00168-CV ____________________

IN RE CROSSTEX NGL PIPELINE, L.P.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for writ of mandamus, Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P. seeks to

compel the trial court to appoint a commissioner to replace the special

commissioner struck by the real party in interest, Reins Road Farms-1, Ltd., and

deny the real party in interest’s motion to strike the entire panel of special

commissioners. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.014 (West Supp. 2012). Relator

argues mandamus relief is necessary to protect its right to an expedited procedure

for exercising eminent domain authority. See Gulf Energy Pipeline Co. v. Garcia,

884 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, orig. proceeding).

1 After reviewing the mandamus petition and the response filed by the real

party in interest, we conclude Crosstex has not established an abuse of discretion

by the trial court. In addition to the condemnation action, Crosstex pursued in

another court a mandatory injunction action affecting the property at issue here.

See Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P. v. Reins Road Farms-1, Ltd., No. 09-12-00563-

CV, 2013 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 23, 2013, no pet. h.). The trial

court did not unreasonably delay acting on pending motions during the accelerated

appeal of the parallel proceeding. Now that an opinion has issued in Crosstex’s

appeal, we presume the trial court will, if requested, proceed with a ruling on any

motions properly before it. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus without prejudice.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 19, 2013 Opinion Delivered May 30, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

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