in Re Esequiel De La Paz

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 1, 2019
Docket13-19-00130-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Esequiel De La Paz (in Re Esequiel De La Paz) 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 Esequiel De La Paz, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-19-00130-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ESEQUIEL DE LA PAZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras1

Relator Esequiel De La Paz filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause

seeking to compel the trial court to dismiss the underlying election contest as moot and

to cancel the general election for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4 of Kleberg County,

Texas, which is currently set to occur on May 4, 2019. By motion for emergency relief,

relator seeks to abate the underlying trial court proceedings and the pending May 4, 2019

general election.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); see also id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying

order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.

In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of

discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made

without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide, 494

S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to

obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the motion for emergency relief and the

petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the 1st day of April, 2019.

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)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia
363 S.W.3d 573 (Texas Supreme Court, 2012)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
in Re Nationwide Insurance Company of America
494 S.W.3d 708 (Texas Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Esequiel De La Paz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-esequiel-de-la-paz-texapp-2019.