Once upon a time a trial court’s decision on a question of dominant jurisdiction was not subject to mandamus relief unless one court was actively interfering with another court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The Texas Supreme Court has abrogated that standard in favor of the more flexible standard the court adopted in In re Prudential Insurance
dominant jurisdiction
When is Mandamus Relief Available for Conflicting Trial Settings?
By Helen Hutton on
Posted in Mandamus
The Texas Supreme Court’s holding in In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)—that determining whether an appellate remedy is “adequate” requires a balancing of the benefits and detriments of mandamus review and is not an abstract or formulaic determination—seems to have caused a split among the…
Dominant Jurisdiction and Mandamus Relief
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Mandamus
Since 1985, the test for whether a writ of mandamus will issue in connection with a trial court’s refusal to grant a plea in abatement under the doctrine of dominant jurisdiction has required proof of an active interference by one court with the jurisdiction of another court. The loosening of mandamus standards does not appear…
Abatement vs Dismissal: Split of Authority?
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
In an interesting opinion regarding dominant/servient jurisdiction and abatement, the Houston (First) Court of Appeals made this observation regarding the proper relief on a motion to abate:
Generally, the proper relief on a motion to abate on the ground of dominant jurisdiction is abatement. . . . However, there is also authority that that if a party
…