in Re Paul D. Andrews, Keith M. Gould, the Gould Law Firm, and Andrews & Gould

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Paul D. Andrews, Keith M. Gould, the Gould Law Firm, and Andrews & Gould

DecidedDecember 28, 2012

Docket13-12-00784-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re Paul D. Andrews, Keith M. Gould, the Gould Law Firm, and Andrews & Gould (in Re Paul D. Andrews, Keith M. Gould, the Gould Law Firm, and Andrews & Gould) 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 Paul D. Andrews, Keith M. Gould, the Gould Law Firm, and Andrews & Gould, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-12-00784-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE PAUL D. ANDREWS, KEITH M. GOULD, THE GOULD LAW FIRM AND ANDREWS & GOULD

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relators, Paul D. Andrews, Keith M. Gould, The Gould Law Firm, and Andrews &

Gould, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for stay in the

above cause on December 28, 2012. The Court, having examined and fully considered

the petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for stay, is of the opinion

that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“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). petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for stay are DENIED. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 28th day of December, 2012.

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