in Re: J. Michael Hershey

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 22, 2006
• Docket: 13-06-00052-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-06-052-CV

                                            COURT OF APPEALS

                                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                    CORPUS CHRISTI- EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

                                     IN RE: J. MICHAEL HERSHEY

 _____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writs of Mandamus

and Prohibition

_______________________________________________________________________

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION   

                       Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo

                                Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam^[1]

On February 6, 2006, relator, J. Michael Hershey, filed a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition, in which he requested this Court to direct the Respondent, the Honorable Daniel R. Sklar, presiding judge of the 329th Judicial District Court of Wharton County, Texas, to withdraw his (1) Supplemental Order of Partition and (2) Amended Order on Motion to Require the Parties to Pay Expenses.  Relator also requested that this Court employ the writ of prohibition to prohibit Respondent from (1) proceeding under the Supplemental Order of Partition or the Supplemental Report of Commissioners and (2) taxing costs disproportionately against Relator. 

Real parties-in-interest filed a preliminary response on February 17, 2006.  The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition and the preliminary response, is of the opinion that relator=s petition should be denied.  Accordingly, relator=s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition is DENIED.^[2]

Per Curiam

Memorandum opinion delivered and filed

this the 22nd day of February, 2006.

---

^[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen 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).

^[2] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).