The supreme court denied the high-profile mandamus petition in In re: Salon a la Mode, noting: “The relators’ claims, raised in an original action in this Court, should first be presented to the appropriate district court.” A concurrence by Justice Blacklock, joined by Justices Guzman, Boyd, and Devine, reminded: “At the same time, all of us—the judiciary, the other branches of government, and our fellow citizens—must insist that every action our governments take complies with the Constitution, especially now. If we tolerate unconstitutional government orders during an emergency, whether out of expediency or fear, we abandon the Constitution at the moment we need it most.”
Category Archives: Mandamus
Mandamus in sanctions dispute
The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief in a sanctions dispute in In re Casey, No. 18-0289 (Nov. 22, 2019), holding:
“In Braden v. Downey, we declined to consider the propriety of monetary sanctions by mandamus, holding instead that payment of monetary sanctions must be deferred until rendition of an appealable judgment if (1) the sanctioned party contends immediate payment would impair access to the courts and (2) the trial court does not promptly hold a hearing and make express written findings to the contrary. . . .
According to [real party in interest], Braden’s deferral mandate is implicated only when a sanctions award rises to the level of a penalty that impedes resolution of the case on the merits. While it is true that the monetary sanction in Braden significantly exceeded the opponent’s compensable attorney’s fees, Braden is not limited in th[at] way . . .
Braden’s focus is on the effect of a monetary sanction that must be paid before it can be
superseded and appealed, not on a specific amount or purpose of the sanction. . . . [A]n opposing party may be awarded sanctions before an appealable judgment is rendered, but neither Chapter 10 nor Rule 13 creates a right to payment before supersedeas is available. Braden concerns are implicated based on a sanction order’s requirement that the sanction be paid in advance of an appealable judgment,”
Fact dispute? No mandamus.
Taxation of land on the shoreline of Corpus Christi Bay (right) has presented a difficult jurisdictional dispute for years between the taxing authorities of Nueces and San Patricio Counties. In considering the most recent mandamus petition about the situation, the Supreme Court noted three, longstanding requirements for such a writ: “One is that the duty required to be performed by mandamus shall not be dependent upon the determination of any doubtful question of fact. Another limitation is that the writ of quo warranto or mandamus be a proper or necessary process for enforcement of the right asserted. A third is there must be some strong and special reason for the exercise of this extraordinary original jurisdiction by a court designed primarily as the court for the correction by appellate review of errors of inferior courts in determining questions of law.” The Court found that the parties’ disputes over the nature of [petitioner’s] facility in relation to the counties’ boundary are significant and require resolution,” and thus found that it had no jurisdiction based on the first of the above-quoted factors. In re Corpus Christi Liquefaction LLC, No. 19-0671 (Oct. 25, 2019).
