In Re: Daniel Kearns v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 21, 2024
Docket05-24-01373-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Daniel Kearns v. the State of Texas (In Re: Daniel Kearns 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: Daniel Kearns v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed November 21, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01373-CV

IN RE DANIEL KEARNS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-06557

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court are relator’s November 20, 2024 petition for writ of

mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief. In his petition, relator

challenges as void various trial-court actions, arguing that all trial-court proceedings

have been automatically stayed pursuant to section 17.505 of the Texas Business and

Commerce Code. In his emergency motion, relator asks us to stay all trial-court

proceedings pending our action on the petition.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure and thus does not meet the requirements for consideration of mandamus relief. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), 52.3(h), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h).

Additionally and alternatively, and even if relator’s record contained properly

certified or sworn documents as required by the rules, entitlement to mandamus

relief requires a relator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and

that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing relator’s

petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate

entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, for each of the above independent and alternative reasons, we

deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also deny

relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief as moot.

/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH 241373F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Daniel Kearns v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-kearns-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.