Court Opinion

ID: 2923914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:53:55.237378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:05.552469
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-07-287-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN RE MARGARET J. WEINHEIMER

____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion (1)

 Relator, Margaret J. Weinheimer, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and
request for an emergency stay in the above cause.  The Court granted the motion for
emergency stay and requested a response from the real party in interest, Edmund
Weinheimer.  
	The real party in interest subsequently filed a motion to abate this original
proceeding to permit a successor judge to reconsider the respondent's orders at issue
herein.  We granted said motion and abated this proceeding to allow the parties to
seek reconsideration by the current judge as required by Rule 7.2(b) of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d 124, 129 (Tex. 2004); see also Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569,
572 (Tex. 1984); State v. Olsen, 163 Tex. 449, 360 S.W.2d 402, 403 (Tex. 1962). 
We lifted the stay previously granted by this Court for purposes of this abatement
order.  
	We have now received and reviewed the successor judge's ruling on relator's
motion to reconsider.  Relator has moved to reinstate this original proceeding.  The real
party in interest has filed a response to the petition for writ of mandamus and a motion
for sanctions.  
	We GRANT relator's motion to reinstate this original proceeding.  The Court,
having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and response
thereto is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought. 
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). 
	We have carefully considered the motion for sanctions. The motion, as it
pertains to this original proceeding, is DENIED.  We are confident that the trial court
will take any steps deemed necessary to ensure that the parties and their counsel
strictly comply with their ethical and professional obligations in further proceedings
below.    
								PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this 26th day of July, 2007.				

1.   See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When 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).