IN RE: THE ESTATE OF JEANNE STAHL, ET AL.--Appeal from County Court at Law No 3 of Nueces County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-09-00245-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE THE ESTATE OF JEANNE STAHL On Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relators, the Estate of Jeanne Stahl, Deceased, David Stahl, Debra Stahl McFarland, and Richard Stahl (collectively referred to as the Stahls ), have filed a petition for writ of mandamus by which they request this Court to direct respondent, the Honorable John B. Martinez, presiding judge of the County Court at Law No. 3 of 1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) ("W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but is n ot required to do so."); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) ( W h e n d e n yin g relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinion but is not req uired to do so. ); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). Nueces County, Texas, to preclude the admission of evidence relating to certain events that transpired (1) before Jeanne Stahl was admitted into the hospital, and (2) after her death. The real parties in interest are Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical Center and Bay Area Medical Center (collectively referred to as Bay Area ). This Court requested a response from the real parties in interest and one was timely filed. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the response, is of the opinion that the Stahls have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought and the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See T EX . R. A PP. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. P ER C URIAM Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed on the 8th day of July, 2009. 2

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.