Court Opinion

ID: 9667140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:36:34.874591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:35.348095
License: Public Domain

SHERRY RADACK, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority decision to deny relators’ petitions, but would deny the petition for a writ of mandamus because relators have not demonstrated a clear right to relief. Well-settled principles demand that a relator who seeks relief in an original proceeding demonstrate a “clear right” to the action that the relator seeks to compel or to foreclose. See Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 682 (Tex.1996); Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.1979). To warrant the relief requested by writ of mandamus here, rela-tors must conclusively establish that the trial court had an unequivocal and ministerial duty to surrender jurisdiction — either *190because it was undisputed that Ochoa never expected to serve Cooper, see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Penn, 363 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex.1962), or because of lack of demonstrated “intent” by Ochoa to serve Cooper. See M.O. Dental Lab. v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671, 674 (Tex.2004). Because relators have not conclusively established either contention, I would deny their petition for a writ of mandamus.