In re Allen Mark Dacus and Elizabeth C. Perez Appeal from 234th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed August 17, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00658-CV IN RE ALLEN MARK DACUS AND ELIZABETH C. PEREZ, Relators ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010-81591 MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 10, 2017, relators Allen Mark Dacus and Elizabeth C. Perez filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the real parties-in interest Mayor Sylvester Turner and the City of Houston to order an election on the Drainage Fee Charter Amendment to be held on November 7, 2017. The Texas Election Code confers jurisdiction on this Court to “issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of any duty imposed by law in connection with the holding of an election.” Tex. Elec. Code § 273.061; In re Williams, 470 S.W.3d 819, 821 (Tex. 2015). To obtain such relief, however, a movant must establish that (1) a public official or body failed to perform a ministerial duty or committed a clear abuse of discretion and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law. See Republican Party v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tex. 1997) (orig. proceeding). “An act is ministerial when the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed by the official with sufficient certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion.” Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex. 1991) (cited in In re Williams, 470 S.W.3d at 821). Relators have not shown that the real parties-in interest have failed to perform a ministerial duty or clearly abused their discretion. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justices Frost and Justices Christopher and Jamison. 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.