Court Opinion

ID: 2930037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-15 00:16:14.451239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:42.091057
License: Public Domain

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July
29, 2004

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum
Opinion filed July 29, 2004.
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-04-00435-CV
____________
 
IN RE LISA P.H. LIN, PAUL C.K.
LIN, AND EUROPAMERICA ORIGINALS, INC., Relators
 
 

 
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDING
WRIT
OF MANDAMUS
 

 
M E M O R A N D U M   O
P I N I O N
On May 3, 2004, relator filed a petition for
writ of mandamus in this Court.  See Tex. Gov=t. Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when a
trial court clearly abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues
or in determining legal principles, and there is no other adequate remedy by
appeal.  In re Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d
179, 180 (Tex. 2003) Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839‑40
(Tex. 1992).  In determining whether
there has been a clear abuse of discretion justifying mandamus relief, the
reviewing court must consider whether the trial court=s ruling was arbitrary, unreasonable,
or reached without reference to any guiding rules or principles, amounting to a
clear and prejudicial error of law.  Johnson
v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917-18 (Tex. 1985).  When alleging that a trial court abused its
discretion in its resolution of factual issues, the party must show the trial
court could reasonably have reached only one decision.  Id. at 918.  As to the determination of legal principles,
an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly fails to analyze or
apply the law correctly.  Walker,
827 S.W.2d at 840.
We find relators have failed to demonstrate the trial court
abused its discretion.  Accordingly, we
deny relators= petition for writ of mandamus. 
 
PER CURIAM
 
 
Petition Denied
and Memorandum Opinion filed July 29, 2004.
Panel consists of
Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore (Edelman, J., would set for argument).