Court Opinion

ID: 2923458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:31:02.814391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:32.935069
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-05-724-CV
 
                         COURT OF APPEALS
 
               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_________________________________________________________________
 
         IN RE: 
WILLIAM N. WOOLSEY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND 
WOOLSEY
& SCHMIDT, L.L.P.   
__________________________________________________________________
 
                      On Petition for Writ of
Mandamus __________________________________________________________________
 
                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
         Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
                            Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion[1]
 

Relators, William N.
Woolsey, Individually, and Woolsey & Schmidt, L.L.P., filed a petition for
writ of mandamus in the above cause on November 16,
2005.  Real Party in Interest, Jack
L. Stone, filed a response on December 13, 2005.  The Court, having examined and fully
considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the response,
is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the
relief sought.  Accordingly, relators'
petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
 
Memorandum Opinion delivered and 
filed this 21st day of March, 2006.     

[1]
See
Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen
denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.@); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing
opinions and memorandum opinions).