Court Opinion

ID: 2923502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:31:32.123304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:40.028639
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-06-052-CV
 
                                            COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                                 THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                                    CORPUS
CHRISTI- EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________
 
                                     IN
RE: J. MICHAEL HERSHEY
 _____________________________________________________________
 
On Petition for Writs of Mandamus
and Prohibition
_______________________________________________________________________
 
                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION    
 
                       Before
Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo
                                Memorandum
Opinion Per Curiam[1]
 

On February 6, 2006, relator,
J. Michael Hershey, filed a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition, in
which he requested this Court to direct the Respondent, the Honorable Daniel R.
Sklar, presiding judge of the 329th Judicial District
Court of Wharton County, Texas, to withdraw his (1) Supplemental Order of
Partition and (2) Amended Order on Motion to Require the Parties to Pay
Expenses.  Relator also requested that
this Court employ the writ of prohibition to prohibit Respondent from (1)
proceeding under the Supplemental Order of Partition or the Supplemental Report
of Commissioners and (2) taxing costs disproportionately against Relator.  
Real parties-in-interest filed a preliminary
response on February 17, 2006.  The
Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writs of mandamus
and prohibition and the preliminary response, is of
the opinion that relator=s petition should be denied.  Accordingly, relator=s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition is
DENIED.[2]

Per Curiam
 
 
Memorandum
opinion delivered and filed 
this
the 22nd day of February, 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).

[2] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).