Court Opinion

ID: 9771413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:42:37.459762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:30.705452
License: Public Domain

BIERY, Justice,
concurring.
While I concur that the majority opinion in Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564 (Tex.1985), is the binding precedent for disposition of the ease before us, I find the language of Curtis v. Gibbs1, and the dissent in Abor to be more pursuasive.
Because we are unable to grant mandamus relief which would otherwise be clearly warranted, it will be necessary that relator, if unsuccessful after a lengthy trial, pursue its legal remedy by appeal and have this court rule at some future juncture that the plea in abatement should have been granted as a matter of law and render judgment for relator/appellant. The resulting waste of time of judges, jurors, attorneys, witnesses, and parties is clearly apparent. See, Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245, 248 (Tex.1988).
While I agree with the general premise of the language in Pope v. Ferguson, 445 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 997, 90 S.Ct. 1138, 25 L.Ed.2d 405 (1970), that appellate courts should not have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to control or correct incidental rulings of a trial judge, such language predated the modem inundation of the appellate courts with applications for writs of mandamus to review rulings of trial judges in discovery matters. If discovery issues warrant mandamus review, it would seem that the avoidance of a lengthy trial, which should have been abated because of dominant jurisdiction in another trial court, rises to at least the same level of importance.
Even though the mandamus relief is being denied, the refiling of the plea in abatement in the trial court may deserve further consideration in light of this opinion and the authorities cited. See Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d at 567.

. "If the second court refuses to sustain a proper plea in abatement, or attempts to interfere with the prior action, this court has the power to act by mandamus or other appropriate writ to settle the conflict of jurisdictions.” Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.1974) (emphasis added).