In Re: Julio Perez, Jr.--Appeal from of County

Annotate this Case
6-96-028-CV Long Trusts v. Dowd /**/

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

 

______________________________

 

No. 06-06-00049-CV

______________________________

 

IN RE: JULIO PEREZ, JR.

 

Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Julio Perez, Jr., has filed a petition asking this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 102nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County to promptly act on his small-claims petition, which he states he filed in accordance with the Texas Government Code on December 26, 2005. Perez references Sections 28.012 and 28.034 of the Texas Government Code as authority for his position that the district court has improperly failed to promptly act on his claim. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 28.012, 28.034 (Vernon 2004). He has not attached to his petition for writ of mandamus a copy of his small-claims petition or any other document.

We have reviewed the sections of the Texas Government Code controlling the actions of small-claims courts and note that, unless a specific small-claims court is in place in a county, "[e]ach justice of the peace sits as judge of the small claims court and exercises the jurisdiction provided by this chapter." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 28.002 (Vernon 2004).

Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law, and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994). Perez has directed us to no authority suggesting that the district court has the duty to act in such a case as Perez has described to this Court. Accordingly, the court has not acted outside of any mandatory duty by failing to act.

We deny the petition.

 

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: May 2, 2006

Date Decided: May 3, 2006

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.