In Re: E. B. Appeal from County Court at Law of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-17-00214-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § E.B., § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On July 6, 2017, E.B. filed an original proceeding in which he challenged Respondent’s temporary orders based on a Rule 11/Informal Conference Agreement between the parties in a divorce proceeding. On October 18, this Court conditionally granted E.B.’s petition and directed Respondent to vacate his April 27, 2017 temporary orders regarding child support, conservatorship, and possession. M.B. filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Texas Supreme Court and the Supreme Court granted a stay of this Court’s October order. See In re M.B., No. 17-0944 (Tex. Nov. 30, 2017) (order). Subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court denied M.B.’s petition, without an opinion, and lifted its stay. See In re M.B., No. 17-0944 (Tex. June 8, 2018) (notice). Accordingly, given the Supreme Court’s ruling, by an order signed on July 9, 2018, Respondent complied with this Court’s October 2017 opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. We dismiss E.B.’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Opinion delivered July 18, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JULY 18, 2018 NO. 12-17-00214-CV E.B., Relator V. HON. JASON A. ELLIS, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus E. B.; who is the relator in Cause No. 16-1151-E, pending on the docket of the County Court at Law of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on July 6, 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.
