in Re State Farm Lloyds, Antone Eugene Jones, and Gregory Latty

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re State Farm Lloyds, Antone Eugene Jones, and Gregory Latty

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided July 21, 2015·No. 01-14-00850-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

and proper pre-suit notice.1 The Court requested and received a response from the

real party in interest, Rosie Hansen, received relators’ reply, heard argument, and

received relators’ post-argument brief. The Court, having examined and fully

considered the petition, response, reply, argument, and post-argument brief, is of

the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought.2

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a), (d).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.

1 The underlying case is Rosie Hansen v. State Farm Lloyds, Antone Eugene Jones, and Gregory Latty, Cause No. 2014-40190, in the 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Robert Schaffer presiding.

2 Relators’ reply referred this Court to a similar mandamus petition, filed by relator State Farm Lloyds before filing this petition and seeking relief identical to the relief requested here, that the Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied. See In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris, No. 13-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL 4243701 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). On June 21, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court denied that petition, and two related ones, without opinion. See The Supreme Court of Texas, Orders Pronounced June 12, 2015, Miscellaneous, 14-0829, at 4, available at http://www.txcourts.gov/media/999576/supreme-court-of-texas-orders-06-12- 2015.pdf (last viewed June 12, 2015).

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

Opinion issued July 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

and proper pre-suit notice.1 The Court requested and received a response from the

real party in interest, Rosie Hansen, received relators’ reply, heard argument, and

received relators’ post-argument brief. The Court, having examined and fully

considered the petition, response, reply, argument, and post-argument brief, is of

the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought.2

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a), (d).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.

1 The underlying case is Rosie Hansen v. State Farm Lloyds, Antone Eugene Jones, and Gregory Latty, Cause No. 2014-40190, in the 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Robert Schaffer presiding.

2 Relators’ reply referred this Court to a similar mandamus petition, filed by relator State Farm Lloyds before filing this petition and seeking relief identical to the relief requested here, that the Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied. See In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris, No. 13-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL 4243701 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). On June 21, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court denied that petition, and two related ones, without opinion. See The Supreme Court of Texas, Orders Pronounced June 12, 2015, Miscellaneous, 14-0829, at 4, available at http://www.txcourts.gov/media/999576/supreme-court-of-texas-orders-06-12- 2015.pdf (last viewed June 12, 2015).

in Re State Farm Lloyds, Antone Eugene Jones, and Gregory Latty, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

in Re State Farm Lloyds, Antone Eugene Jones, and Gregory Latty (in Re State Farm Lloyds, Antone Eugene Jones, and Gregory Latty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.