In Re: Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County (per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-12-00008-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: TEXAS FARM § BUREAU UNDERWRITERS, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On July 18, 2012, this Court delivered an opinion and order conditionally granting the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters. That opinion directed Respondent to vacate his order denying Farm Bureau s motion to sever and abate, and issue an order severing the contractual claim of Terry Graham, Jr., from his extracontractual claims and abating discovery related to the extracontractual claims. Respondent has complied with our opinion and order of July 18, 2012. All issues attendant to this original proceeding have now been disposed of, rendering this mandamus proceeding moot; therefore, the writ need not issue. proceeding is dismissed as moot. Opinion delivered July 31, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) Accordingly, this original COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JULY 31, 2012 NO. 12-12-00008-CV TEXAS FARM BUREAU UNDERWRITERS, Relator v. HON. JACK SKEEN, JR., Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by TEXAS FARM BUREAU UNDERWRITERS, who is the relator in Cause No. 10-2640-C, pending on the docket of the 241st Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on January 9, 2012, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that this original proceeding has been rendered moot, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DISMISSED. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

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.