in Re: Rose Crago and John Crago, Independent of David Crago ( 2017 )

NUMBER 13-17-00586-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ROSE CRAGO AND JOHN CRAGO,
INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID CRAGO
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relators Rose Crago and John Crago, independent executor of the estate of David
Crago, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on October 18, 2017.
Through this original proceeding, relators seek a writ of mandamus compelling the
respondent to withdraw a temporary injunction granted on September 22, 2017 on
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
any other case,” but 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).
grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case. This Court requested and
received a response to the petition from the real party in interest, Nueces County, and
also received a reply thereto from relators. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300,
302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain mandamus relief, a relator
must show that the underlying order is void or that the order represents a clear abuse of
discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. See In re Nationwide Ins. Co.,
494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's
ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles
or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor
Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an
appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments.
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). However, when an
order is void, “the relator need not show it did not have an adequate appellate remedy,
and mandamus relief is appropriate.” In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex.
2000) (orig. proceeding); In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex. 1998) (orig.
proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the response, the reply, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not
shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. See, e.g., Robinson v. Parker, 353 S.W.3d
2
753, 755 (Tex. 2011). Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
16th day of November, 2017.
3