in Re: Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and Leticia Ventura

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 10, 2006
Docket13-05-00617-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and Leticia Ventura (in Re: Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and Leticia Ventura) 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: Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and Leticia Ventura, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-05-617-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

         IN RE:  KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION

                             AND LETICIA VENTURA

________________________________________________  _________________

                      On Petition for Writ of Mandamus ___________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

                            Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]


Relators, Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and Leticia Ventura, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on September 29, 2005.  The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response filed by real parties in interest,[2] relators' reply, real parties' surreply, the record, and the supplemental record, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

Furthermore, the temporary stay granted on November 22, 2005, is lifted.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 10th day of January, 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]The real parties in interest are the plaintiffs below.  They include Luis Rios, Ricardo Arguello, Jesus A. Barraza, Luis A. Briceno, Jorge L. Carpio, Arturo Casas, Hector de la Fuente, Johnny de la Rosa, Sergio F. Del Angel, Israel Esquivel, Gilberto Garcia, Ismael Garcia, Javier Garcia, Jr., Santos Garza, Pedro Garza, Jr., Jesus E. Gonzalez, Rudy Guajardo, Noel J. Hernandez, Eric Hernandez, Arturo Longoria, Raul Madrigal, Antonio Martinez, Jose M. Moya, Miguel Orocio, Jr., Jorge L. Perez, Rafael Perez, Edgar Quiroga, Juan Rodriguez, Martin Salinas, Jesus G. Solis, Isidro Venecia, Jr., Juan Carlos "Charlie" Garcia, Torribio Cortina, III, Antero Villanueva, Albert Munoz, Jr., Jose R. Alanis, Alfredo Zepeda, Jr., Ruben Morales, Jose Ponce, Jr., Mario Moreno, Samuel Rodriguez, Jr., Juan Jose Rodriguez, Jacob Molina, Roberto Cazares, and Ricardo Garcia.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: Kaplan Higher Education Corporation and Leticia Ventura, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kaplan-higher-education-corporation-and-leti-texapp-2006.