Court Opinion

ID: 9762731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:29:59.195237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:36.930690
License: Public Domain

CHAVEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe that Relator has an adequate remedy at law through an expedited appeal, I would dismiss Relator’s motion for leave to file writ of mandamus as improvidently granted.
Relator recognizes in his petition that he has an adequate remedy at law by way of an expedited appeal, and so acknowledged at oral argument. Counsel’s argument was that this was the quickest way he could bring this controversy to this court. Mandamus only lies (1) to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of duty imposed by law, (2) when no adequate remedy at law exists. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992); Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985) (“Mandamus issues only to correct a clear abuse of diseretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law. State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex.1984). The court of appeals, therefore, acts in excess of its writ power [abuses its discretion] when it grants mandamus relief absent these circumstances.”) In the instant case, an adequate remedy exists — accelerated appeal in the underlying case. Thus, according to the established standard, mandamus is not appropriate in the ease at bar.
The majority’s reliance upon Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.1997), is misplaced. The facts of that case are distinguishable from those at bar, and do not warrant deviation from established principles governing issuance of the writ. Republican Party is factually dissimilar from the case at bar in that the Republican Party Court was asked to grant mandamus relief in conjunction with a major state political parly convention that was to begin on June 20, 1996. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus was filed on June 17, 1996. The court concluded that “(t)he quick eruption and short time frame of this constitutional controversy compelled mandamus review.” Id., at 94. Shortness of time is not at issue here. The parties stated to the court that the record was practically complete and ready for filing, that other issues needed to be raised and briefed, and that the case could be submitted to the court at an early date.
The City of Robstown has four other elected or appointed commissioners and a city staff in place. Thus, the city should be able to function while this controversy is pending before the court. The facts of this case do not warrant abrogation of the traditional standard for issuance of the writ. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.