In re Juan Chavez--Appeal from 111th Judicial District Court of Webb County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00433-CV IN RE Juan CHAVEZ Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 6, 2008 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On June 20, 2008, relator Juan Chavez filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. Chavez, who was a candidate for a position on the Laredo City Council, was defeated in an election held on May 10, 2008. Chavez claims the winner of the election, Jose A. Valdez, Jr., was ineligible to run for the Laredo City Council. Chavez requests a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to reverse its order of March 13, 2008 declaring Valdez eligible to seek election to the city council and requiring Valdez s name to be placed on the ballot. The court has considered Chavez s mandamus petition and is of the opinion relief should be denied. See Cox v. Perry, 138 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (holding defeated candidate did not have standing to challenge 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CVQ-000288-D2, styled Jose A. Valdez, Jr. v. Gustavo Guevara, Jr., City Secretary, and the City of Laredo, filed in the 111th Judicial District Court, W ebb County, Texas. However, the challenged orders were signed by the Honorable David Peeples, Presiding Judge, Fourth Administrative Judicial Region, who heard the case by assignment. 04-08-00433-CV winning candidate s eligibility to take office); Norville v. Parnell, 118 S.W.3d 503, 504 (Tex. App. Dallas 2003, pet. denied) (holding the issue of a winning candidate s eligibility is exclusively a matter of public concern and must be prosecuted by the State in a writ of quo warranto). Accordingly, Chavez s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX . R. APP . P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM -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.