in Re Howard Lee Atkinson Jr.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 9, 2018
Docket13-18-00431-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Howard Lee Atkinson Jr. (in Re Howard Lee Atkinson Jr.) 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 Howard Lee Atkinson Jr., (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-18-00431-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE HOWARD ATKINSON

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

Relator Howard Atkinson filed a conditional amended petition for writ of mandamus

and writ of prohibition in the above cause on August 6, 2018. Through this original

proceeding, Atkinson contends that the trial court would abuse its discretion in refusing

to enter judgment on a mediated settlement agreement based on an inquiry regarding

whether that agreement was in a minor child’s best interest.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). On August 3, 2018, Atkinson filed a largely identical petition for writ of mandamus

and writ of prohibition. On the morning of August 6, 2018, this Court denied relief. In re

Atkinson, No. 13-18-00423-CV, 2018 WL 3723095, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug.

6, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). The conditional amended petition for writ of

mandamus and prohibition that is currently at issue here was filed later that afternoon.

This Court has already determined the issue presented here. Accordingly, we

dismiss this conditional amended petition for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition,

and all relief sought therein, as moot. See City of Krum, Tex. v. Rice, 543 S.W.3d 747,

749 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex.

2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig.

proceeding)

GINA M. BENAVIDES, Justice

Delivered and filed the 8th day of August, 2018.

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

Related

In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
166 S.W.3d 732 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
City of Krum v. Rice
543 S.W.3d 747 (Texas Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Howard Lee Atkinson Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-howard-lee-atkinson-jr-texapp-2018.