In Re: York Risk Services Group, Inc., Brad Selph, and Selph Arms, LLC Appeal from 4th District Court of Rusk County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-17-00210-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC., BRAD SELPH, AND SELPH ARMS, LLC, RELATOR § § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING § MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relators, York Risk Services Group, Inc., Brad Selph, and Selph Arms, LLC, filed an original mandamus proceeding complaining of the trial court’s June 30, 2017 supplemental order requiring the production of certain documents. On November 22, 2017, this Court conditionally granted Relators’ petition and directed Respondent to (1) vacate his June 30 order that required York to provide Corby Hall, Real Party in Interest, with un-redacted versions of documents tendered for in camera review; and (2) conduct further proceedings consistent with our opinion. By an order signed on December 11, Respondent has complied with this Court’s opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Opinion delivered December 13, 2017. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT DECEMBER 13, 2017 NO. 12-17-00210-CV YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC., BRAD SELPH, AND SELPH ARMS, LLC, Relators V. HON. J. CLAY GOSSETT, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by York Risk Services Group, Inc., Brad Selph, and Selph Arms, LLC; relators in Cause No. 2015-351, pending on the docket of the 4th Judicial District Court of Rusk County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on July 5, 2017, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, 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.
