Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas denied Antonio E. Mercado and Nancy L. Mercado's petition for writ of mandamus. The court also denied their emergency motion for stay as moot, concluding that the relators had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether relators established entitlement to a writ of mandamus by showing a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a legal duty and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
- Whether the emergency motion for stay should be granted.
Holdings
- Relators were not entitled to a writ of mandamus because they failed to show that the requirements for mandamus relief were satisfied.
- The emergency motion for stay was denied as moot.
Key quotations
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when the relator can show (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion or violated a duty imposed by law; and (2) there is no adequate remedy by way of appeal.” (at 1)
Factual background
Antonio E. Mercado and Nancy L. Mercado sought mandamus relief arising from a case pending in the 229th Judicial District Court of Duval County. They also sought an emergency stay while the mandamus proceeding was pending. After reviewing the petition and record, the court concluded that relators had not shown entitlement to the requested relief.
Procedural history
Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus on December 16, 2025, and an emergency motion for stay on December 17, 2025. The proceeding arose from Cause No. DC-25-34 in the 229th Judicial District Court of Duval County, Texas. The court denied the mandamus petition and denied the emergency motion for stay as moot.