Court Opinion

ID: 2833849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-02 17:08:46.096448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:07.065533
License: Public Domain

Footnotes in HTML versions of 
opinions are designated by boxes (click on the box to see the footnote text) and 
are not numbered. For an exact copy of the opinion, retrieve the Adobe PDF 
version.
 
 
IN 
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
 
════════════
No. 06-0088
════════════
 
In re The Honorable Karen 
Angelini
 
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
 
              Justice Johnson, joined by Justice O’Neill, concurring.
 
              I 
agree that mandamus relief should be denied because factual disputes exist. Once 
that conclusion has been reached and expressed, however, no further controversy 
is before us as this matter is postured. I would not opine as to what relief is 
appropriate in the event of future hearings and if particular factual 
determinations result from those hearings.
              Further, 
although I joined with Justice Wainwright in dissenting from the Court’s 
decisions in Francis and Holcomb and still believe that those 
cases were wrongly decided, the cases are now precedent of this Court. Thus, I 
cannot join his dissent. I concur in the Court’s decision to deny relief.
 
                                                                                      ________________________________________
                                                                                      Phil 
Johnson
                                                                                      Justice
 
OPINION 
DELIVERED: February 24, 2006