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

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s order denying a plea to the jurisdiction that had been filed by the Texas attorney general, who had intervened in the proceeding for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction.  The court of appeals held that Texas district courts lack jurisdiction to grant divorces to same-sex couples legally married in

Appellate practitioners know that winning an appeal is not always the end of litigation.  Sometimes it’s just a new beginning of disputes, as my blog entry regarding the Supreme Court’s opinion in the In re Columbia Medical Center case indicates.  But other times, it really is supposed to be the end.  What happens if the trial judge doesn’t see it that way?

 Last month, I blogged about a case called In re Victor Enterprises, Inc., in which the Dallas Court of Appeals granted a petition for writ of mandamus against Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 after the judge of that court granted a petition for writ of mandamus without requesting a response from the Relator, Victor Enterprises.   The court of appeals held that such an act was clear error and granted mandamus.  Now there’s more to the story…


Continue Reading Mandamus to prevent exercise of jurisdiction where there is none