CONDITIONALLY GRANTED and Opinion Filed May 23, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00582-CV 

IN RE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT AND JOHN 

SILOVSKY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WILDLIFE DIVISION 

DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, 

Relators 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 110299-CC2 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Miskel 

In this mandamus proceeding, relators Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

and John Silovsky (together, the Department) seek to enforce the automatic statutory 

stay provision of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §51.014(b) and to obtain 

relief from the trial court’s temporary restraining order relating to the depopulation 

of a commercial deer breeding facility. We conclude that the trial judge’s order 

violates the statutory stay and that relators have no adequate remedy by appeal. We 

therefore conditionally grant relators' petition for writ of mandamus. 

I. Background 
 –2– 

This mandamus proceeding arises out the issuance of a deer depopulation 

order by the Department after the detection of Chronic Wasting Disease in whitetailed deer bred at a breeding facility in Kaufman County owned by RW Trophy 

Ranch, Ltd. and Robert Williams (together, Trophy Ranch). The Department filed 

an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s (1) order denying the Department’s 

consolidated plea to the jurisdiction and (2) order granting an application for a 

temporary injunction filed by Trophy Ranch, which appeal is currently pending. The 

Texas Supreme Court recently stayed a temporary order from this Court that had 

prevented depopulation pending resolution of the appeal. Prior to the rescheduled 

depopulation of the facility, on May 13, 2024, the trial court entered an additional 

temporary restraining order regarding the manner of the planned depopulation. The 

Department subsequently filed an emergency petition for writ of mandamus in this 

Court. 

II. Standard of Review 

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). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is 

arbitrary and unreasonable, made without regard for guiding legal principles or 
 –3– 

supporting evidence. Id. Similarly, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to 

analyze or apply the law correctly. Id. 

The second requirement for mandamus relief, that the petitioner has no 

adequate remedy by appeal, “has no comprehensive definition.” See In re Prudential 

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Determining 

whether a party has an adequate remedy by appeal requires a “careful balance of 

jurisprudential considerations” and “depends heavily on the circumstances 

presented.” See id. at 136–37. 

III. The temporary restraining order violates the statutory automatic stay. 

The Department contends that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a 

temporary restraining order during the pendency of an interlocutory appeal relating 

to the Department’s plea to the jurisdiction. 

Section 51.014(b) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides: 

An interlocutory appeal under Subsection (a), other than an appeal 

under Subsection (a)(4) or in a suit brought under the Family Code, 

stays the commencement of a trial in the trial court pending resolution 

of the appeal. An interlocutory appeal under Subsection (a)(3), (5), (8), 

or (12) also stays all other proceedings in the trial court pending 

resolution of that appeal. 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(b) (emphasis added). The stay of all other 

proceedings in the trial court applies to an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a plea 

to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 

51.014(a)(8). 
 –4– 

The Texas Supreme Court has emphasized that: 

Courts cannot add equitable or practical exceptions to section 51.014(b) 

that the legislature did not see fit to enact. The statute creates a clear 

and definite rule, and its text admits of no exceptions to that rule. The 

stay is of “all other proceedings in the trial court,” and the text dictates 

that the stay lasts until “resolution of th[e] appeal,” not until the court 

of appeals lifts the stay. 

In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d 82, 87 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) 

(citations and footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court also 

stated that procedural rules cannot authorize courts to act contrary to a statute. Id. 

In the present case, the Department appealed the trial court’s orders denying 

its plea to the jurisdiction and granting a temporary injunction. Therefore, § 

51.014(b) automatically stayed the commencement of trial and all other proceedings 

in trial court pending resolution of the appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§51.104(b); In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d at 87. The trial court thus 

clearly abused its discretion when it issued its temporary restraining order in 

violation of the automatic stay. In addition, we conclude that no adequate remedy 

by appeal exists under the facts in this case. See In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 

S.W.3d at 92 (stating that there is generally no adequate remedy by appeal for an 

erroneous court order purporting to lift the automatic statutory stay). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial 

judge to immediately vacate his May 13, 2024 temporary restraining order. The writ 
 –5– 

of mandamus will issue only if the trial judge fails to comply with this Court’s 

opinion and order. 

240582F.P05 

/Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL 

JUSTICE