IN RE MOBILE CRANE SERVICE, INC.Appeal from 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-13-00575-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE MOBILE CRANE SERVICE, INC. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator, Mobile Crane Service, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for temporary relief in the above cause on November 1, 2013. Through this original proceeding, relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing pretrial rulings: (1) denying relator s motion to void high-low settlement agreements entered by other parties; (2) denying relator s motion to admit evidence of the high-low settlement agreements at the upcoming trial; (3) denying 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ( 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). relator s motion to realign the parties and equalize peremptory strikes; and (4) limiting the future trial testimony of two of relator s experts. To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). This burden is a heavy one. See In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met its burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135 36. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 1st day of November, 2013. 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.
