Court Opinion

ID: 9406891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 06:07:42.488536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:34.058084
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed July 3, 2023

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00550-CV

          IN RE RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Relator

           Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-17946

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy
                             Opinion by Justice Smith
      In its June 2, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus, relator sought relief from a

trial court order making certain pre-trial determinations of law. This Court initially

denied relief for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

      Relator filed a supplement to its mandamus record and an affidavit to cure the

compliance issues that we identified in our June 12, 2023 opinion, moved to

supplement the mandamus record with such materials, and moved for rehearing.

Because the rules allow a relator to supplement the record without a motion, we

accept the supplemental record and affidavit and deny as moot the motion to

supplement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(b). Recognizing that the supplemental record
and affidavit cure the technical defects that provided the basis for our conclusion

that relator’s petition did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

we withdraw our opinion and vacate our order of June 12, 2023, and we issue this

new memorandum opinion and order of this date in their stead.

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude

that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

      Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

      We also deny relator’s motion for rehearing.

                                           /Craig Smith/
                                           CRAIG SMITH
                                           JUSTICE

230550F.P05

                                        –2–