In re Killam Ranch Properties, Ltd., Relator--Appeal from 341st Judicial District Court of Webb County

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00692-CV IN RE KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD. Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 17, 2010 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On September 24, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asserting: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to cancel the lis pendens, and (2) the trial court erred in cancelling the lis pendens while an appeal is pending and without requiring security or an undertaking. This court ordered the respondent and/or real parties in interest to file a response to the petition, and responses were filed with this court on October 14, 2010. Relator has also filed an appeal in Cause No. 04-10-00324-CV, which appeals the trial court s order granting summary judgment to Webb County and denying summary judgment to Killam Ranch, the award of attorney s fees, and the cancelling of the lis pendens. On October 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CVQ-001680-D3, Killam Ranch Properties, Ltd. v. Webb County, Texas, in the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Michael Peden, visiting judge presiding. 04-10-00692-CV 21, 2010, relator filed a supplemental brief in Cause No. 04-10-00324-CV. As a result, the appeal now encompasses all of the issues addressed in the petition for writ of mandamus. In order to be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy at law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). The court has determined that relator has failed to establish it does not have an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, the petition for 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.