in Re: Aaron Vaughan and Lacy Vaughan ( 2014 )

NO. 12-14-00006-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS ' APPEAL FROM THE IN RE: AARON VAUGHAN AND ' 321ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF LACY VAUGHAN, RELATORS ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On September 17, 2014, this Court delivered an opinion conditionally granting the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Aaron Vaughan and Lacy Vaughan, Relators. That opinion directed Respondent to vacate her order signed on December 19, 2013, setting aside Lacy Vaughan’s jury trial demand. Respondent has complied with our order and opinion of September 17, 2014. All issues attendant to this original proceeding having been disposed of, this mandamus proceeding has now been rendered moot; therefore, the writ need not issue. Accordingly, this original proceeding is dismissed as moot. Opinion delivered September 30, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 NO. 12-14-00006-CV IN RE: AARON VAUGHAN AND LACY VAUGHAN, RELATORS ______________________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ______________________________________________________________________________ ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by AARON VAUGHAN AND LACY VAUGHAN, RELATORS, who are the relators in Cause No. 12-2355-D, pending on the docket of the 321st Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on January 7, 2014, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that A Writ of Mandamus Should Not Issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED that the Relators, AARON VAUGHAN AND LACY VAUGHAN, pay all costs incurred by reason of this proceeding. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.