In Re Safe Way Carrier LLC v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re Safe Way Carrier LLC v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 20, 2025·No. 01-25-00951-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued November 20, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

“issue a writ of mandamus directing [the trial court] to vacate [its] [o]rder of September 25, 2025, and to sustain the Special Appearance asserted by [r]elator.”

In connection with its petition writ of mandamus, relator also filed an “Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Resolution of Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” In its motion, relator requested that the Court grant an “immediate stay of all proceedings in the underlying case pending this Court’s resolution” of relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator stated that the relief “was necessary to preserve the status quo.”

We conclude that relator has failed to establish it is entitled to mandamus relief, and therefore the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 875 (Tex. 2021) (discussing mandamus standard that to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator “must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and that [relator] has no adequate remedy by appeal”); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 51.014(a)(7) (permitting appeal from interlocutory trial court order that “grants or denies the special appearance of a defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure”). We dismiss any pending motions, including relator’s Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Resolution of Petition for Writ of Mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.

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

Opinion issued November 20, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

“issue a writ of mandamus directing [the trial court] to vacate [its] [o]rder of September 25, 2025, and to sustain the Special Appearance asserted by [r]elator.”

In connection with its petition writ of mandamus, relator also filed an “Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Resolution of Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” In its motion, relator requested that the Court grant an “immediate stay of all proceedings in the underlying case pending this Court’s resolution” of relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator stated that the relief “was necessary to preserve the status quo.”

We conclude that relator has failed to establish it is entitled to mandamus relief, and therefore the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 875 (Tex. 2021) (discussing mandamus standard that to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator “must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and that [relator] has no adequate remedy by appeal”); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 51.014(a)(7) (permitting appeal from interlocutory trial court order that “grants or denies the special appearance of a defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure”). We dismiss any pending motions, including relator’s Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Resolution of Petition for Writ of Mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.

In Re Safe Way Carrier LLC v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

In Re Safe Way Carrier LLC v. the State of Texas (In Re Safe Way Carrier LLC v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.