What did the court decide?

The court denied the mandamus petition and found the relators did not show they were entitled to the extraordinary relief requested.

Who does this affect?

The decision affects the relators (the Elizondos) and the underlying Zapata County district court proceedings, as the appellate court refused to intervene.

What happens next in the underlying case?

The underlying proceeding in the 49th Judicial District Court continues; the relators must pursue available relief in that court or seek further appellate options if appropriate.

Can this decision be appealed?

Relators may seek further relief, such as filing a petition for review or other appropriate appellate remedies, but the memorandum opinion does not itself grant further relief.

In Re Omar Elizondo, Ovidio Elizondo, and Dr. Anthony Cynthia Elizondo Aradillas v. the State of Texas

Docket 04-26-00236-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherDenied

Filed: Apr 15, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 04-26-00236-CV

Original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus from the Fourth Court of Appeals arising out of a Zapata County district court case.

Summary

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.

Issues Decided

Whether the relators established entitlement to a writ of mandamus to relieve them from action in the underlying Zapata County district court proceeding.
Whether emergency temporary relief or expedited consideration was warranted in support of the mandamus petition.

Court's Reasoning

The court determined the relators failed to meet the standard for extraordinary relief under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the relators did not establish they were entitled to the requested mandamus relief, there was no basis to grant emergency temporary relief or expedited consideration, which the court treated as moot. The court cited the applicable appellate rule as its procedural basis for decision.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)

Parties

Petitioner: Omar Elizondo
Petitioner: Ovidio Elizondo
Petitioner: Dr. Anthony Cynthia Elizondo Aradillas
Respondent: Hon. Walden Shelton (49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County)
Other: Hilcorp Energy Company (underlying case party)
Judge: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Judge: Irene Rios, Justice
Judge: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Key Dates

Filed petition and motions: 2026-03-24
Decision filed: 2026-04-15

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel
Discuss whether to pursue further appellate review or other remedies and evaluate the merits and deadlines for additional filings.
2
Proceed in trial court
Continue defending or advancing positions in the underlying Zapata County district court matter since mandamus relief was denied.
3
Evaluate emergency relief options
If urgent relief is necessary, consider whether factual or legal developments justify a new emergency application or alternate procedural vehicle.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court denied the mandamus petition and found the relators did not show they were entitled to the extraordinary relief requested.
Who does this affect?: The decision affects the relators (the Elizondos) and the underlying Zapata County district court proceedings, as the appellate court refused to intervene.
What happens next in the underlying case?: The underlying proceeding in the 49th Judicial District Court continues; the relators must pursue available relief in that court or seek further appellate options if appropriate.
Can this decision be appealed?: Relators may seek further relief, such as filing a petition for review or other appropriate appellate remedies, but the memorandum opinion does not itself grant further relief.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                       San Antonio, Texas

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                           No. 04-26-00236-CV

    IN RE Omar ELIZONDO, Ovidio Elizondo, and Dr. Anthony Cynthia Elizondo Aradillas

                                           Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 15, 2026

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED; EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RELIEF DENIED AS MOOT; MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
DENIED AS MOOT

           Relators filed their petition for writ of mandamus, emergency motion for temporary relief,

and motion for expedited consideration on March 24, 2026. Having considered the petition and

motions, we have determined that relators have not established that they are entitled to the relief

requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. The

emergency motion for temporary relief and the motion for expedited consideration are denied as

moot.

                                                       PER CURIAM


1
 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 12,620, styled Omar Elizondo v. Hilcorp Energy Company, pending in the
49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas, the Honorable Walden Shelton presiding.