in Re Edward R. Newsome

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Edward R. Newsome

DecidedJanuary 8, 2013

Docket14-12-01110-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Edward R. Newsome (in Re Edward R. Newsome) 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 Edward R. Newsome, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed January 8, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01110-CV

IN RE EDWARD R. NEWSOME, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2005-06163

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 13, 2012, relator Edward R. Newsome 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 his petition, relator does not ask this court to compel any action by the trial court, nor does he attach to his petition any ruling by the trial court of which he may complain. Relator refers to a final judgment in a civil suit that was appealed to this court. See Newsome v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 2007 WL 1558759, No. 14-06-01149-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 31, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Relator appears to be seeking to further litigate this suit and a motion to transfer venue.

Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles, when there is no other adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law, or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005). The relator has the burden to present a petition and record showing that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7; In re Houstonian Campus, L.L.C., 312 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding).

Relator has not established that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and McCally.

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

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed January 8, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01110-CV

IN RE EDWARD R. NEWSOME, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2005-06163

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 13, 2012, relator Edward R. Newsome 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 his petition, relator does not ask this court to compel any action by the trial court, nor does he attach to his petition any ruling by the trial court of which he may complain. Relator refers to a final judgment in a civil suit that was appealed to this court. See Newsome v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 2007 WL 1558759, No. 14-06-01149-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 31, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Relator appears to be seeking to further litigate this suit and a motion to transfer venue.

Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles, when there is no other adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law, or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005). The relator has the burden to present a petition and record showing that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7; In re Houstonian Campus, L.L.C., 312 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding).

Relator has not established that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and McCally.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in Re Edward R. Newsome, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edward-r-newsome-texapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack