In re Sharyland Utilities, L.P. Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Cameron County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBER 13-16-00291-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE SHARYLAND UTILITIES, LP, ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION TEXAS, LLC, AND AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relators, Sharyland Utilities, LP, Electric Transmission Texas LLC, and AEP Texas Central Company, filed petitions for writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to vacate a temporary restraining order that prohibited relators from energizing a ninetysix mile electric transmission line. This Court granted temporary relief and requested the real party in interest, William R. Gault, to file a response to the petitions for writ of 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). 1 mandamus. The parties have now filed an unopposed joint motion to dismiss this cause as moot on grounds that Gault is no longer seeking the temporary restraining order and the electronic transmission line has been energized. The Court, having examined and fully considered the joint motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings.”); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (stating that, for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought). Accordingly, we LIFT the stay previously imposed, GRANT the joint motion to dismiss, and DISMISS this original proceeding. PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 16th day of June, 2016. 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.