In re Christopher Cedar, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact for Susan Helen Cedar Appeal from 311th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued April 28, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00305-CV ——————————— IN RE CHRISTOPHER CEDAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY-INFACT FOR SUSAN HELEN CEDAR, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Christopher Cedar, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact for Susan Helen Cedar, has filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s March 30, 2016 order denying his Emergency Motion for Costs and awarding attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,210. Because relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, we deny the petition for mandamus and relator’s accompanying Motion for Emergency Stay. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 215.2(b)(8); Braden v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922, 928–29 (Tex. 1991); In re Noble Drilling, 449 S.W.3d 625, 632 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (holding that party had adequate remedy by appeal from the trial court’s award of $50,498 in sanctions); In re Supportkids, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding) (holding that party had adequate remedy by appeal from trial court’s award of $10,000 in attorney’s fees). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley. 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.
