In Re: Joe L. Lovell, Relator--Appeal from of County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-02-0088-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
JUNE 27, 2002
______________________________
IN RE JOE L. LOVELL
_________________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and DODSON and DICKENSON, RJ.1
Relator Joe L. Lovell filed this original proceeding seeking an extraordinary writ
directing the Honorable Bill Sheehan to (1) vacate the judgment and orders in the original
underlying lawsuit affecting relator, and (2) disqualify himself from conducting further
proceedings in both the underlying lawsuit and the cause of action severed from it.
Subsequent to the filing of his petition, relator requested this court to stay all proceedings
in the trial court pending resolution of his petition. We entered an order temporarily
staying further proceedings but later, on the request of one of the other parties to the
underlying suit, partially vacated the stay so that a hearing might be held on a motion or
1
Retired Justices Carlton B. Dodson and Bob Dickenson are sitting by assignment.
motions to recuse Judge Sheehan. That hearing was held, and Kelly Moore, Presiding
Judge of the Ninth Administrative Judicial Region, entered orders in both the original
cause and the severed cause recusing Judge Sheehan.
Writs of mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation
of a duty imposed by law where there is no other remedy by law. Johnson v. Fourth Court
of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985). A remedy by appeal is not inadequate
merely because it might involve more delay or cost than a mandamus action. In re Ford
Motor Co., 988 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. 1998). The burden is on the party seeking
mandamus to establish that he has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Bay Area
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, 982 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tex. 1998). Relator has failed to
meet that burden with respect to his request that we vacate the judgment or orders in the
underlying lawsuit affecting him. First, he has failed to direct us to the specific orders that
should be vacated other than the judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered by Judge
Sheehan.
Second, he has failed to show that the propriety of the judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or other orders of the trial court cannot be attacked on direct
appeal.
As to relator’s request that we order Judge Sheehan to disqualify himself from
conducting further proceedings in both the underlying original lawsuit and the severed
cause of action, he has obtained the relief he sought by virtue of the orders of recusal
2
entered by Judge Moore. Therefore, this issue is moot, and there is no need for us to
address it.
Finding that mandamus relief is not appropriate, we overrule relator’s petition for
extraordinary writ. The stay of proceedings previously entered by this court is vacated.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3
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.