In Re Mark Hyland Appeal from 113th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed February 15, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00033-CV IN RE MARK HYLAND, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 113th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014-24818 MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 18, 2018, relator Mark Hyland filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Michael Landrum, presiding judge of the 113th District Court of Harris County (the “Harris County court”), to vacate all orders issued by the court. To obtain mandamus relief, a relator generally must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). When an order is void, the relator need not show the lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and mandamus relief is appropriate. In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Martinez, 478 S.W.3d 123, 125 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). A judgment or order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering it had no jurisdiction of the parties, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or no capacity to act as a court. See Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990). Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We also lift our stay entered on January 19, 2018. /s/ William J. Boyce Justice Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown (J. Jamison voted to grant the petition for writ of mandamus) 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.