Court Filings

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 Sixth Court of Appeals denied Brian Keith Melton’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the Hunt County trial judge to rule on his motion to dismiss counsel. The court explained that mandamus requires showing no adequate remedy at law, a ministerial duty by the trial court, and a sufficient record. Melton failed to provide certified copies of his motion or a request for a ruling as required by the appellate rules, and he offered no authority showing that the trial court’s roughly thirty-day delay was unreasonable. For those reasons the petition was denied.

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 Texas Tenth Court of Appeals denied Shawn Eric McGee’s petition for a writ of mandamus filed April 10, 2026. The court issued a short memorandum opinion stating the petition is denied and that motions included with the petition are dismissed as moot. The opinion notes that the relator also attempted to file a notice of appeal in the same document and reminds that a separate notice of appeal must be filed when a proceeding becomes final in the trial court. The decision was delivered and filed April 16, 2026.

The Texas Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by WC 4th and Rio Grande LP in an original proceeding from Travis County. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion concluding the petition did not warrant mandamus relief and cited the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No further explanation of the merits or factual background was provided in the published entry, and the court simply denied the requested extraordinary writ.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Geoji, Inc.'s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a trial-court action. The appellate court issued a short memorandum opinion simply stating denial and citing the appellate rule allowing such disposition. No extended reasoning, factual background, or separate opinion was included in the published entry. The decision concludes the original proceeding from Travis County without granting the extraordinary relief requested by the petitioner.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied David Paul Shipp's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a Williamson County court action. The opinion is a brief memorandum disposition that grants no relief and cites the appellate rule for denial. No extended reasoning or factual discussion is provided in the published entry. The petition remains unresolved in the trial court as a result of this denial, and the appellate court provided no substantive ruling on the merits.

The Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth considered Elizabeth Case’s original petition for a writ of mandamus and an emergency motion seeking relief from the 393rd District Court of Denton County (trial court no. 25-3863-393). The appellate court reviewed the request and denied both the petition and the emergency motion in a per curiam memorandum opinion delivered April 15, 2026. The court provided no extended written reasoning in the memorandum opinion beyond the denial.

The Fourth Court of Appeals denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Omar Elizondo, Ovidio Elizondo, and Dr. Anthony Cynthia Elizondo Aradillas. The petition and related motions (an emergency motion for temporary relief and a motion for expedited consideration) were filed March 24, 2026. After review, the court concluded the relators did not show entitlement to the extraordinary relief requested and therefore denied the mandamus petition; the emergency and expedited motions were denied as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied James McCoy's petition for a writ of mandamus filed April 6, 2026, seeking to compel action in an underlying Bexar County district-court case. The court reviewed McCoy's petition and motions and concluded he did not meet the legal standard for mandamus relief under Texas appellate rules. As a result, the petition is denied and McCoy's ancillary motions (to proceed in forma pauperis and to accept a single copy of pleadings) were denied as moot.

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by AGON4, LLC and Texas Premium Beverage Corp. The relators sought to compel action in an underlying probate-court case but failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court found the petition insufficient, it denied the writ and dismissed as moot the relators' separate motion for temporary relief (a stay of the underlying proceedings). No further reasoning beyond the procedural insufficiency is provided.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Jessica Marklund Johansson. The court issued a short memorandum opinion stating only the denial and citing the appellate rule permitting such disposition. No substantive analysis or factual background appears in the opinion; the denial resolves the original mandamus proceeding brought from Travis County without granting the extraordinary relief sought.

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.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals, in an original mandamus proceeding arising from Travis County, denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion concluding the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary relief sought and cited the appellate rule governing disposition. No further explanation or relief was provided in the opinion, and the denial resolves the petition without granting any mandamus relief.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied Sonny Delgado's petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissed his emergency motion for temporary relief as moot. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion stating only the disposition and citing the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No substantive opinion or reasoning was provided in the document beyond the procedural rulings and the filing date.

The Court of Appeals of the Eighth District of Texas denied Ruben Dario Almela's petition for a writ of mandamus. Almela filed the petition on April 6, 2026 seeking extraordinary relief, but the court concluded he failed to demonstrate entitlement to that relief. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed any pending motions as moot. The opinion is brief and affirms the denial without issuing further instructions or relief.

The Texas Second Court of Appeals considered Miceala Hurtado’s original mandamus petition seeking extraordinary relief from an order of the 325th District Court of Tarrant County. After review, the appellate court concluded mandamus relief was not warranted and denied the petition in a brief per curiam memorandum opinion. No extended reasoning or factual discussion appears in the opinion; the court simply states it considered the petition and determined relief should be denied.

The Texas Supreme Court denied a mandamus petition challenging a trial court order that disqualified defendants’ counsel because a legal assistant who formerly worked for the plaintiffs later worked on the same case for the defendants’ firm without having been instructed to avoid the matter. The Court reaffirmed a longstanding bright-line rule that side-switching nonlawyers must be admonished not to work on matters from their prior employment before they commence work on a later-arising conflict, and that institutional screening measures must also be shown. The Court held the plaintiffs timely sought disqualification and that the absence of the required admonition justified disqualification.

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 Court of Appeals (Tenth Appellate District of Texas) received Thomas Blanchard's March 2, 2026 filing titled a petition for writ of habeas corpus but construed it as a petition for a writ of mandamus because of the relief sought. The court considered the filing and denied the petition. The opinion is a short memorandum with the Chief Justice delivering the opinion and the denial issued on April 9, 2026.

The court construed Ignacio Lara Jr.'s pro se filing as a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's order for a competency examination. The court explained mandamus standards and the requirements for such petitions under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including the need to show a ministerial duty and an inadequate legal remedy and to supply an adequate record. Because Lara failed to meet procedural and record requirements and did not show entitlement to relief, the court denied the petition for writ of mandamus without issuing an opinion for publication.

The First Court of Appeals denied a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Ryen Michelle Staggers seeking to vacate and stay enforcement of a March 27, 2026 temporary order from a Harris County family-court case. The appellate court concluded Staggers failed to provide the mandatory mandamus record or appendix that includes a certified copy of the challenged trial court order, as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court could not review the order, it found she had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief and therefore denied the petition and dismissed pending motions as moot.

The First District of Texas denied a pro se petitioner Ryen Michelle Staggers' request for a writ of mandamus and emergency stay. Staggers asked this Court to stay and vacate a March 27, 2026 trial-court order in an underlying child‑protection case, alleging extrinsic fraud and due-process violations. The appellate court declined relief because the mandamus record and appendix did not include the required certified copy of the March 27, 2026 order, preventing review of her claims. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

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 First Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency stay filed by Heather J. Taylor and Mad Hat Maven, LLC. Relators had challenged a district court's March 3, 2026 order allowing substituted service of subpoenas and a March 31, 2026 enforcement order compelling their depositions and production of documents. The appellate court declined to disturb the trial court’s orders and refused to stay the depositions scheduled for April 9, 2026, effectively leaving the trial court’s discovery and enforcement directives in place.

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 in San Antonio denied DNOW L.P.'s petition for a writ of mandamus and denied as moot its emergency stay motion. DNOW filed the petition, record, and emergency motion on April 6, 2026, but the court found the filings did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k) and 52.7 and determined DNOW had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief under rule 52.8(a). The underlying state-court matters concern Mattea Mansell v. DNOW, L.P., pending in Zavala County district court.