Court Filings

The Court of Appeals (Sixth District) denied Jeffrey Don Brock's petition for a writ of mandamus asking the county court judge to rule on his motion to compel an executor's accounting. Brock had demanded an accounting by March 16, 2026, but filed for mandamus on March 10, before that deadline expired. The executor filed a verified accounting on March 13 (with clerk acceptance disputed by Brock). The court held Brock was not entitled to extraordinary relief because he sought mandamus before the accounting deadline and did not show the trial court refused to rule on his later complaints about the accounting.

Justice Young dissented from the Court’s denial of a petition for writ of mandamus by Warwick Construction, Bustamante Construction, and DLC General Construction Services. The relators asked the trial court for limited reopening of discovery under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.5(b); the trial court denied that request and the relators sought mandamus relief. Justice Young would have stayed the upcoming trial so the Court could fully consider whether the denial of discovery implicated Rule 190.5(b) and risked mooting review. He explains that proceeding to trial could vitiate relators’ ability to present their case and waste judicial resources if an appellate remedy were later required.

The Court of Appeals (Thirteenth District) denied Randall Bolivar’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging several trial-court actions in cause no. 2021-DCL-05478. Bolivar argued the trial court abused its discretion by not deeming requests for admission admitted, by failing to provide notice and hearings on six motions, and by not signing a nonsuit order. The court held that mandamus is extraordinary relief and that Bolivar failed to meet his burden to show both a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and the record provided was insufficient to support mandamus relief.

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas denied Houston Pipe Line Company LP's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a trial court order that granted a plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court declined to disturb the trial court's decision, lifted its prior stay issued October 7, 2025, and dismissed any pending motions as moot. The court issued a short per curiam memorandum opinion denying relief without extended discussion.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) denied a petition for a writ of mandamus brought by Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and TD Ameritrade, Inc. challenging a lower-court action in Travis County. The court issued a short memorandum opinion simply stating the petition is denied and citing the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No extended reasoning or factual background appears in the document; the decision is a procedural denial of extraordinary relief rather than a merits ruling on underlying claims.

The Court of Appeals (Eighth District) denied Levi Hardy’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a successor judge’s order granting a new trial in a divorce case after a three-day bench trial. Levi argued the successor judge (who did not preside over the bench trial) abused discretion by granting a new trial without receiving evidence or stating reasons. The court declined to extend Texas mandamus precedent that allows merits review of new-trial orders after jury trials to new-trial orders following bench trials, concluding extraordinary circumstances were not shown and that a prompt retrial here outweighed the harms of interlocutory review.

The El Paso Court of Appeals denied a petition for mandamus seeking to overturn a probate court order disqualifying attorney Tony Aguilar from representing the estate of Judith Wheatley. The court held that Aguilar’s deposition and other evidence showed he was likely an essential fact witness about how six deeds conveying the Poki Roni Ranch came to be in Judy’s possession. Because his testimony could be necessary and adverse to Travis’s estate, the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in disqualifying him under the advocate-witness rule. The court therefore refused to grant extraordinary mandamus relief.

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied CPS Energy's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's denial of its motion for protective order and the overruling of objections to a subpoena directed at non-party Dimension Energy Services in a pending Bexar County case. The appellate court held CPS Energy failed to preserve necessary factual issues for mandamus review and also noted an adequate alternative remedy exists because Dimension has filed its own protective-order motion in the trial court. The court therefore declined to consider new evidence or arguments raised for the first time on mandamus and denied relief.

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas denied Beverly Brooks's emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial-court order dated April 13, 2026. Brooks sought to prevent counsel Kirkendall Dwyer, LLP from withdrawing all funds held in the trial court's registry and to secure a portion of the registry funds representing accrued interest. The appeals court declined relief and left the trial court's order intact, which granted withdrawal of the full registry amount to Kirkendall Dwyer and denied Brooks's request for interest funds.

The Texas Supreme Court denied review of an appeal in an asbestos wrongful-death case involving Howmet Aerospace and the Burford family. Justice Young concurred in the denial while criticizing the court of appeals for rejecting a prior Texas Supreme Court statement that proof of dose is required even in single-source asbestos-exposure cases. He explained the factual posture (long-term household exposure from a worker’s contaminated clothes), summarized relevant precedent (Havner, Flores, Bostic), and said that although lower courts show confusion, this particular case cannot resolve the dose question because the court of appeals found the plaintiffs had produced sufficient proof of dose. He urged future review in an appropriate case.

The Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus from Anjeneya Vijay Cheruvu, who sought to overturn a March 19, 2026 trial-court order holding him in contempt for possession or access in a Fort Bend County child-protection case. Cheruvu argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the contempt order. The appellate court concluded he did not meet the heavy burden required for mandamus relief, so it refused to direct the trial court to vacate the contempt order and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

The court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Anderson & Associates, PLLC seeking to overturn a trial court order of December 5, 2025 that redistributed an attorney fee award. The court explained mandamus requires showing both that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or that the order is void. The court concluded the relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, withdrew its prior order requesting responses from the real parties in interest, and denied the petition and emergency relief.

Justice Young filed a short opinion respecting the Court’s denial of rehearing in a petition for review concerning the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA). He explains that the Court has rarely authoritatively construed TUFTA and that many lower and federal courts have had to make independent interpretations. Justice Young concluded this particular case is a poor vehicle to resolve the broader statutory question—whether terminating a contract right to future payments can be a fraudulent transfer—because the record is highly fact-specific. For those reasons the Court denied rehearing and declined to take the case for further guidance on TUFTA.

The First District of Texas denied a mandamus petition filed by May Kue and Youssef Ezzat challenging a county court’s final judgment in an eviction case. The relators asked the court to issue an emergency stay blocking a writ of possession, further proceedings in the underlying eviction, and release of registry funds. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and all related emergency motions and stay requests without granting the requested relief.

The Texas Court of Appeals (First District) denied Kevin Henry's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order that granted an opponent's motion to compel discovery in a pending civil case (Derrick Dees v. Kevin Henry et al.). The appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and dismissed any outstanding motions as moot. The opinion is a short per curiam memorandum without extended factual or legal discussion, and it leaves the trial court's order intact.

The Texas First Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Anant Kumar Tripati challenging a trial court order that granted a motion to dismiss in an underlying suit against YESCARE Corp. and others. The appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and dismissed any pending motions as moot. The opinion is brief and issued per curiam, listing the underlying district-court cause and judge but providing no extended reasoning or factual detail.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied a petition asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus to control proceedings in a Travis County case. The court also lifted a previously entered stay of the underlying trial-court proceedings. The court issued a short memorandum opinion denying relief under the appellate rules and returning the case to the trial-court process, without further comment or substantive analysis in this brief disposition.

The Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, denied Joy Cherie Kilgore’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking relief related to an underlying case in Bexar County District Court. The court considered Kilgore’s petition and an incorporated emergency motion for temporary relief filed April 6, 2026, and concluded she was not entitled to mandamus relief under the Texas appellate rules. Because the requested extraordinary relief was denied, the court also denied the emergency motion as moot. No written opinion explaining detailed reasoning was issued—this is a brief disposition under the appellate rules.