In re Dean Davenport, Dillon Water Resources, Ltd., 5D Drilling and Pump Service, Inc. f/k/a Davenport Drilling & Pump Service, Inc., 5D Water Resources, LLC f/k/a Davenport Oper., LLC, Water Exploration Co., Ltd., WAD, Inc., Et al. Appeal from 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00231-CV IN RE Dean DAVENPORT; Dillon Water Resources, Ltd.; 5D Drilling and Pump Service, Inc. f/k/a Davenport Drilling & Pump Service, Inc.; 5D Water Resources, LLC f/k/a Davenport Oper., LLC; Water Exploration Co., Ltd.; WAD, Inc.; Water Investment Leasing Company, LLC; Blue Gold Resources Management, LLC; Blue Gold Properties, LLC; and Blue Gold Development, LLC Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 28, 2015 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On April 16, 2015, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s order setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial in the underlying suit for breach of a contingent fee agreement between attorneys and their former client. Having considered relators’ petition, the response and reply of the parties, and the oral arguments presented, this court 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012-CI-03086, styled Tom Hall, Thomas C. Hall, P.C. as Successor in Interest to Hall & Bates, L.L.P., Blake Dietzmann, Tim Patton and Timothy Patton, P.C. v. Dillon Water Resources, Ltd., 5D Drilling and Pump Service, Inc. f/k/a Davenport Drilling & Pump Service, Inc., 5D Water Resources, LLC f/k/a Davenport Oper., LLC, Dean Davenport, WAD, Inc., Water Exploration Co., Ltd., Water Investment Leasing Company, LLC, Blue Gold Resources Management, LLC, Blue Gold Properties, LLC and Blue Gold Development, LLC, pending in the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Peter A. Sakai presiding. 04-15-00231-CV is of the opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought. 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.
