In Re Catholic Diocese of Brownsville Appeal from 275th District Court of Hidalgo County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-17-00503-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROWNSVILLE On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez1 Relator Catholic Diocese of Brownsville filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate an order requiring it to produce discovery in alleged violation of the work product doctrine and First Amendment privilege. U.S. CONST. amend. 1; TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 8. This Court granted temporary relief and requested that the real parties in interest, John Doe 1 and Ronaldo Mitchell Chavez, or any others whose interest would 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). be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. On September 26, 2017, relator filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding on grounds that the parties have reached an agreement which resolves the dispute underlying the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that this original proceeding should be dismissed. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties Accordingly, we LIFT the stay previously at any stage of the legal proceedings.”). imposed in this case. We GRANT the motion to dismiss and we DISMISS this original proceeding. /s/ Rogelio Valdez ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 27th day of September, 2017. 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.