In re Kenneth Leo Buholtz Appeal from County Court at Law No. 4 of Collin County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-17-00098-CV IN RE KENNETH LEO BUHOLTZ Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Kenneth Leo Buholtz, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this Court to order the Honorable David Rippel, Collin County Court at Law No. 4, “to issue a ruling on [Buholtz]’s Supplemental Cause of Action for Fraud against a real party in interest to the instant matter.” This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district.” Act of May 26, 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., ch. 740, § 1, 2017 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 3166, 3166 (West) (codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b)(1)). Collin County, however, is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(g) (West Supp. 2016).1 Accordingly, we have no authority to address the merits of the issues raised in Buholtz’ petition. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: October 16, 2017 October 17, 2017 Section 22.201(g) of the Texas Government Code states, “The Sixth Court of Appeals District is composed of the counties of Bowie, Camp, Cass, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Gregg, Harrison, Hopkins, Hunt, Lamar, Marion, Morris, Panola, Red River, Rusk, Titus, Upshur, and Wood.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(g). 1 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.
