IN RE T.W. LAQUAY DREDGING, INC.--Appeal from 267th District Court of Calhoun County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-11-00691-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE T. W. LAQUAY DREDGING, INC. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 T. W. LaQuay Dredging, Inc.., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on October 28, 2011, seeking relief from the trial court s failure to grant a noevidence motion for summary judgment and the trial court s verbal grant of the real party in interest s oral motion for continuance of the hearing on the no-evidence motion for summary judgment. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ( When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case, but when denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). Ordinarily, mandamus relief lies when the trial court has abused its discretion and a party has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. See In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). In determining whether appeal is an adequate remedy, we consider whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of mandamus review. In re BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 244 S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Appellate courts may not deal with disputed areas of fact in a mandamus proceeding. In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); In re Angelini, 186 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus under the applicable standard of review, is of the opinion that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 7th day of November, 2011. 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.
