In Re John Davis v. the State of Texas

Tex. App. Ct., 11th Dist. (Eastland)

In Re John Davis v. the State of Texas

CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)

DecidedFebruary 12, 2026

Docket11-26-00015-CV

StatusPublished

This text of In Re John Davis v. the State of Texas (In Re John Davis v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re John Davis v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed February 12, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-26-00015-CV __________

IN RE JOHN DAVIS

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 28, 2026, Relator, John Davis, filed a petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition, Relator requested that we compel the trial court to rule on the parties’ pending summary judgment motions in the proceedings below. In this regard, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court set the hearing for such motions by submission for October 10, 2025. However, and according to Relator, the trial court failed to rule on the motions in a timely manner, resulting in the instant mandamus petition. We asked for a response from counsel for the Real Parties in Interest. In their response, counsel states that the trial court has ruled on the motions that are the subject of this proceeding and has signed a final judgment incorporating its rulings. A file-marked copy of the trial court’s final judgment is included in the appendix. The trial court’s final judgment recites its rulings on the parties’ motions for summary judgment and reflects that the “judgment disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable.” Counsel states that trial court’s rulings and final judgment “eliminate[] the controversy in this proceeding” and render the matter moot. We agree that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is now moot because the trial court has provided the relief that Relator seeks from this court. See In re Carlson, 712 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding) (“Because no . . . dispute remains, we are obliged to dismiss the mandamus petition as moot.”); In re Chaparral Pipeline Co., LLC, No. 11-22-00312-CV, 2023 WL 162800, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (The trial court provided the relator with the relief sought, rendering the petition for writ of mandamus moot.). We lack jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy. Carlson, 712 S.W.3d at 73, 75. Accordingly, we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE

February 12, 2026 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

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

Opinion filed February 12, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-26-00015-CV __________

IN RE JOHN DAVIS

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 28, 2026, Relator, John Davis, filed a petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition, Relator requested that we compel the trial court to rule on the parties’ pending summary judgment motions in the proceedings below. In this regard, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court set the hearing for such motions by submission for October 10, 2025. However, and according to Relator, the trial court failed to rule on the motions in a timely manner, resulting in the instant mandamus petition. We asked for a response from counsel for the Real Parties in Interest. In their response, counsel states that the trial court has ruled on the motions that are the subject of this proceeding and has signed a final judgment incorporating its rulings. A file-marked copy of the trial court’s final judgment is included in the appendix. The trial court’s final judgment recites its rulings on the parties’ motions for summary judgment and reflects that the “judgment disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable.” Counsel states that trial court’s rulings and final judgment “eliminate[] the controversy in this proceeding” and render the matter moot. We agree that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is now moot because the trial court has provided the relief that Relator seeks from this court. See In re Carlson, 712 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding) (“Because no . . . dispute remains, we are obliged to dismiss the mandamus petition as moot.”); In re Chaparral Pipeline Co., LLC, No. 11-22-00312-CV, 2023 WL 162800, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (The trial court provided the relator with the relief sought, rendering the petition for writ of mandamus moot.). We lack jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy. Carlson, 712 S.W.3d at 73, 75. Accordingly, we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE

February 12, 2026 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In Re John Davis v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-john-davis-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp11-2026.