in Re: Edna Davis

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 4, 2008
Docket13-08-00005-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Edna Davis (in Re: Edna Davis) 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: Edna Davis, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion





NUMBER 13-08-00005-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG



IN RE: EDNA DAVIS



On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Relator, Edna Davis, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on January 4, 2008, in which she alleges that the respondent, the Honorable Thomas Greenwell, Presiding Judge of the 319th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, abused his discretion by denying relator's motion to disqualify Bradford Condit as counsel for real parties in interest, Gulf Coast Construction & Restoration, Charles Ward, and Arne Norem, and by denying relator's motion to stay the January 7, 2008 trial court setting. In addition to the petition for writ of mandamus, relator filed a motion for emergency relief asking this Court to order a stay of the January 7, 2008 trial, pending this Court's determination of relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

Real parties in interest filed a reply to relator's motion for emergency temporary relief and motion for sanctions, and relator subsequently filed a response.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, relator's motion for emergency relief, the real parties' in interest reply to relator's motion for emergency temporary relief, the real parties' motion for sanctions, and relator's response to real parties' reply, is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought and the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. In addition, the relator's motion for emergency temporary relief and the real parties' motion for sanctions are denied.

The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM



Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 4th day of January, 2008.



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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: Edna Davis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edna-davis-texapp-2008.