in Re Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 12, 2010
Docket14-10-00657-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC (in Re Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC) 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 Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 12, 2010

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-00657-CV

In Re Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

On July 21, 2010, relator, Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and, on August 4, 2010, a supplemental petition for writ of mandamus in this Court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Susan Criss, presiding judge of the 212th District Court of Galveston County, to set aside her July 19, 2010 order granting real party in interest’s motion to reconsider, and her August 2, 2010 order granting real party in interest’s application for a temporary injunction. 

Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008); In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 189 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (op. on reh’g) ( “Because Henry had an adequate by appeal of the temporary injunction, mandamus was not appropriate as to the temporary injunction, and we denied mandamus as to the TRO.”); In re Holland, No. 14-09-00656-CV, 2009 WL 3154479, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 1, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. on reh’g) (explaining that interlocutory appeal of order granting temporary injunction provides adequate remedy by appeal).  Therefore, relator has not established its entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, and related emergency motion to stay proceedings.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Boyce.

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

Related

Henry v. McMichael
274 S.W.3d 185 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-denbury-green-pipeline-texas-llc-texapp-2010.