Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, denied a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order granting a new trial. The court held that the order was signed within the trial court’s plenary-power period and was therefore not void, and that mandamus would not lie from an order granting a new trial absent voidness.
Holdings
- The order granting a new trial was not void because it was signed within 105 days after the judgment was signed and therefore within the trial court's plenary power.
- Mandamus will not lie from an order granting a motion for new trial unless the order is void.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's order granting a new trial was void because it was signed outside the court's plenary-power period.
- Whether mandamus relief may issue from an order granting a new trial when the order is not void.
Disposition
writ_denied
Cases Cited (6)
- In re Nguyen, 155 S.W.3d 191, 193 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, orig. proceeding)(followed)
- In re A.N., 126 S.W.3d 320, 323 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, pet. denied)(followed)
- Harris County Hosp. Dist. v. Estrada, 831 S.W.2d 876, 879 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ)(followed)
- In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570, 570-71 (Tex. 1998)(followed)
- In re Attorney General, 195 S.W.3d 264, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, orig. proceeding)(followed)
- In re Taylor, 113 S.W.3d 385, 393 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…