Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): jurisdiction issue. Standard of Review Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that generally issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or a violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex.2005); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992); In re Barnes, 127 S.W.3d 843, 846 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). With respect to factual matters, we must not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Barnes, 127 S.W.3d at 846. However, such deference does not apply to the determination of what the law is or applying it to the facts of a particular case. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion when it'errs in determining what the law is or in app El Paso 2003, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). Application When a party seeks to modify a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in jurisdictional disputes arising from child custody proceedings relator need not demonstrate inadequacy of appellate remedy (B) holding in appellate proceedings decision of trial court has presumption of correctness and burden is on appellant to demonstrate error (C) holding that the a bankruptcy court can enjoin proceedings in other courts when it is satisfied that such proceedings would defeat or impair its jurisdiction over the case before it and the court does not need to demonstrate an inadequate remedy at law or irreparable harm (D) holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child (E) holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional
Output (English): holding that the a bankruptcy court can enjoin proceedings in other courts when it is satisfied that such proceedings would defeat or impair its jurisdiction over the case before it and the court does not need to demonstrate an inadequate remedy at law or irreparable harm