in Re Bruce Olson
13-17-00610-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Relator Bruce Olson filed a petition for writ of mandamus and emergency relief seeking an order directing the trial court to grant his summary-judgment motion and a temporary restraining order (TRO).
- Olson also sought a stay of trial-court proceedings pending resolution of the mandamus petition.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether mandamus was appropriate to correct the trial court’s rulings.
- The court analyzed mandamus standards: extraordinary remedy, requires clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy.
- The court considered whether denial of summary judgment or denial of a TRO presented extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel grant of summary judgment | Olson contends the trial court wrongly denied his summary-judgment motion and mandamus is needed to correct that error | Trial court’s denial of summary judgment does not present extraordinary circumstances; appeal is adequate | Denied — mandamus generally unavailable for denied summary judgment absent extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether mandamus should compel issuance of a TRO | Olson argues the TRO denial must be corrected immediately because appellate review is inadequate | Trial court erred, but Olson failed to show the issues are sufficiently grave to make mandamus the only adequate remedy | Denied — Olson did not show interests serious enough to overcome presumption that TRO rulings are not mandamus-eligible |
| Whether an emergency stay of proceedings pending mandamus is warranted | Olson sought a stay while the mandamus petition is decided | No sufficiently shown basis for extraordinary relief or stay | Denied — no stay; mandamus petition denied |
| Whether relator met burden to justify mandamus | Olson bore the burden to prove both clear abuse and no adequate appellate remedy | Respondent asserted normal appellate review suffices and no clear arbitrary ruling shown | Denied — relator failed to meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; relator bears burden to prove both requirements)
- In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus proper to correct clear abuse of discretion when no adequate appellate remedy)
- In re United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2010) (mandamus generally unavailable for denial of summary judgment)
- In re Office of the Atty. Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. 2008) (TRO rulings may be mandamus-reviewable when issues involve sufficiently serious interests and no appellate remedy)
- In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016) (abuse of discretion standard defined as arbitrary, unreasonable, or made without regard for legal principles)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to prove both prerequisites for mandamus)