University of Incarnate Word and Christopher Carter v. Valerie Redus, Individually, and Robert M. Redus, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Cameron Redus
04-15-00120-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 4, 2015Background
- University of the Incarnate Word (UIW) filed a response opposing Appellees’ motion to issue the mandate after the Fourth Court of Appeals’ August 26, 2015 opinion in an interlocutory appeal.
- UIW represents it will file a Petition for Review in the Supreme Court of Texas and therefore will not file a motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration in the court of appeals.
- Because no rehearing/en banc motions will be filed, UIW states its Petition for Review is due 45 days after the opinion (October 12, 2015).
- Appellees moved for early issuance of the mandate under Tex. R. App. P. 18.1(c); UIW opposes, arguing Appellees failed to show “good cause” required for early issuance and that issuing the mandate risks interfering with Supreme Court jurisdiction.
- UIW cites the stay effect of interlocutory appeals (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b)) and authorities showing courts should respect a party’s representation it will seek Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should issue the mandate early under Tex. R. App. P. 18.1(c) | Appellees argue the court’s judgment effectively ends the interlocutory appeal and mandate should issue so trial proceedings may proceed. | UIW contends Appellees failed to show good cause for early issuance; UIW will seek Supreme Court review and early mandate would interfere with that process. | No mandate issued at filing; Appellant opposes issuance and motion to issue mandate is opposed/pending. |
| Whether an appellant’s stated intent to file a Petition for Review warrants delaying mandate | Appellees implicitly argue mandate should issue despite appellant’s intent. | UIW argues that a representation of intent to file a Petition merits respect and ordinarily supports delay to avoid interfering with Supreme Court jurisdiction. | Court has not issued mandate; appellant’s representation given weight in opposition to early mandate. |
| Effect of interlocutory-appeal stay on trial-court proceedings pending mandate | Appellees seek mandate to allow trial activity to proceed. | UIW notes interlocutory appeal stays commencement of trial per statute, so mandate issuance affects trial stay. | Stay remains until appeal finally disposed of; early mandate would lift stay but is contested. |
| Standard for issuing mandate earlier than rules prescribe | Appellees assert no barrier to early issuance. | UIW cites that early issuance requires showing good cause and courts should avoid interfering with Supreme Court jurisdiction. | Early issuance requires good cause; Appellees have not demonstrated it in UIW’s view. |
Key Cases Cited
- William Marsh Rice Univ. v. Refaey, 459 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. 2015) (addresses jurisdictional review of interlocutory appeals)
- Klein v. Hernandez, 315 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2010) (discusses finality and jurisdiction in interlocutory appeals)
- Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Chem. Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2009) (explains that a court may issue a mandate earlier for good cause)
- City of Cresson v. City of Granbury, 245 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (recognizes respect due to a party’s representation to seek Supreme Court review)
- In re Jerry F., 294 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (court of appeals should avoid actions that interfere with supreme court jurisdiction)