In re Stephen Carrigan Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-20-00489-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE STEPHEN CARRIGAN On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1 Relator Stephen Carrigan filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its November 13, 2019 “Order Confirming Arbitration Award and Final Judgment.”2 We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). 1 2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 2013-DCV-2831-G in the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. The order subject to review in this case has already been the subject of a direct appeal. See Carrigan v. Edwards, No. 13-20-00093-CV, 2020 WL 6504418, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 5, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Mandamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 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). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide, 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. However, when an order is void, the relator need not show the lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and mandamus relief is appropriate. In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that the relator has failed to meet his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Delivered and filed the 16th day of November, 2020. 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.
