In Re: Keith Russell Judd--Appeal from of County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-11-00035-CV ______________________________ IN RE: KEITH RUSSELL JUDD Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION Keith Russell Judd has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. Judd claims he has filed a petition in the trial court to dissolve an alleged common-law marriage. We deny Judd s requested relief. Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 40 (Tex. 1992); see In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009). It is the relator s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Pilgrim s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198 99 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Judd has provided this Court with no documents supporting his request. There is neither a certified copy of the motion Judd claims to have filed in the trial court, nor any copies of the several motions for default Judd claims to have presented to the trial court. We find Judd has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. 2 We, therefore, deny his petition. Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: April 4, 2011 April 5, 2011 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.
