In Re Frost Bank v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Frost Bank v. the State of Texas (In Re Frost Bank 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.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas November 6, 2024
No. 04-24-00491-CV
IN RE FROST BANK, Relator
Original Proceeding 1
ORDER
On July 22, 2024, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting the trial court erred when it denied Relator’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss.
After considering the mandamus petition and record and Real Party in Interest’s response, we conclude the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion.
Therefore, we conditionally GRANT mandamus relief, and DIRECT the trial court to vacate its order denying Relator’s Rule 91a motion, and enter an order granting Relator’s Rule 91a motion. This writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court fails to comply within fifteen days of the date of our opinion and order.
It is so ORDERED on November 6, 2024.
_____________________________ Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of November, 2024.
_____________________________ Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk
1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2023-CI-02298, styled UBA Pharmacy, LLC v. PNL Invest, LLC and Frost Bank, pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa presiding.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Frost Bank v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-frost-bank-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.