In Re Dan H. Hennigan v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re Dan H. Hennigan v. the State of Texas

DecidedJuly 25, 2023

Docket14-23-00460-CV

StatusPublished

This text of In Re Dan H. Hennigan v. the State of Texas (In Re Dan H. Hennigan 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 Dan H. Hennigan v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 25, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00460-CV

IN RE DAN H. HENNIGAN, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22-CV-2293

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 30, 2023, relator Dan H. Hennigan filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator names Mortgage Assets Management, LLC as respondent and states that he is seeking damages from it.

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. A court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus against (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a district or county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201 of the Texas Family Code in the court of appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). The courts of appeals also may issue all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Id. § 22.221(a).

Mortgage Assets Management, LLC is not among the parties specified in section 22.221(b). See id. § 22.221(b). Moreover, relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against Mortgage Assets Management, LLC.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Hassan, and Wilson.

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

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 25, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00460-CV

IN RE DAN H. HENNIGAN, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22-CV-2293

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 30, 2023, relator Dan H. Hennigan filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator names Mortgage Assets Management, LLC as respondent and states that he is seeking damages from it.

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. A court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus against (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a district or county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201 of the Texas Family Code in the court of appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). The courts of appeals also may issue all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Id. § 22.221(a).

Mortgage Assets Management, LLC is not among the parties specified in section 22.221(b). See id. § 22.221(b). Moreover, relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against Mortgage Assets Management, LLC.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Hassan, and Wilson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In Re Dan H. Hennigan v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dan-h-hennigan-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.