Court Opinion

ID: 9391757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 06:10:47.249469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.405264
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed April 25, 2023

                                    S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 No. 05-23-00109-CV

                         IN RE DR. GLEN KING, Relator

           Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-12568

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Kennedy
                            Opinion by Justice Kennedy
      Relator filed a motion for reconsideration of our March 30, 2023

memorandum opinion and order denying relief. Construing the motion as a motion

for rehearing, we deny the motion. We also withdraw our opinion and vacate our

order of March 30, 2023, and we issue this new memorandum opinion and order

denying relief in their stead.

      In his February 7, 2023 petition, relator requested a writ of mandamus

compelling the trial court to vacate its January 20, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiffs’

Motion to Recover on Bonds and to Request New Bond Be Set. The Court denied

relief on two independent grounds: (1) relator’s petition did not comply with the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and (2) even if this defect did not exist, relator

failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

      Relator moved for reconsideration. Relator included in his motion a

supplemental verification that remedied the technical defect that provided the basis

for our conclusion that relator’s petition did not comply with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition, the response, relator’s reply, and the

record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to

mandamus relief.

      Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

      We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s February 8, 2023 Order.

                                            /Nancy Kennedy/
                                            NANCY KENNEDY
                                            JUSTICE
230109F.P05

                                         –2–