*1 In re PACIFIC UNION RESOURCES
COMPANY, Relator.
Argued Dec. 1997. March
Decided July
Rehearing Overruled Villarreal, Hermansen, Corpus
Carlos Tom Christi, Relator. III, Edwards,
William R. John Blaise Edwards, Gsanger, Corpus William R. Davis, Christi, Bryan, Respondent. Fred PHILLIPS, Chief delivered the Court, in of the SPECTOR, OWEN, ENOCH, BAKER, HANKINSON, Justices, join. ABBOTT and case, this condition ally compelling issued writ of mandamus denying the trial court to vacate its order recusal motion. Monroe v. 1997) (Tex.App —Corpus S.W.2d 533 Chrisit . party has an complaining
quate remedy by appeal, im mandamus was proper. We therefore We ex press opinion regarding whether court abused its discretion in motion. Jeffrey Lee Monroe and Gena Jo Monroe Company Pacific sued Union Resources personal injury other defendants for dam- ages. The Monroes to recuse the moved Max Bennett. Honorable recusal, alleged, grounds for The Monroes Villareal, partner in the Carlos law representing firm Union Pacific under- lawsuit, lying currently representing Bennett, capacity, his official in an alleged lawsuit. The Monroes unrelated might impartiality reason- ably attorney- because of the with Mr. client Villareal. to recuse himself. Pursu- declined 18a(d) ant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure motion to re- Bennett forwarded the *2 428 Tucker, 18, 218, the v. 146 Tex. 202 221 presiding judge
cuse to the adminis- S.W.2d (1947). Likewise, judicial presiding judge objection, timely trative district. The the on appointed the Honorable Robert disqualification assigned judge of an iswho County Nueces district to hear the judge mandatory anot retired is under sec- hearing After at 74.053(d) recusal motion. a which the tion of Texas Government Code testified, Judge appeared Judge Bennett and by judge a trial in a any orders entered granted ordering Blackmon motion the disqualified case in he is are void. See Judge Judge Bennett’s recusal. Energy Corp., 440- Mitchell 943 S.W.2d at Judge requesting then a wrote to Blackmon 441; Therefore, Fry, 202 at the S.W.2d rehearing on the recusal matter. In re- objecting party is to mandamus also entitled sponse request, showing a that there is no without hearing Blackmon held another and reversed adequate remedy by appeal. See Dunn v. ruling. response ruling, his In to this second Street, 33, (Tex.1997); S.W.2d 34-35 938 petitioned the Monroes Banner, 500, (Tex. Flores v. 932 S.W.2d 501 Black- mandamus to direct 1996). grant mon to vacate his order the motion contrast, of the erroneous denial appeals sitting court for recusal. The of en nullify or evenly petition, on a recusal motion does not void the bane divided the and the assigned a presiding subsequent Chief Justice of this Court the Hon- acts. While Chapa, judgment orable Alfonso Retired Chief Justice rendered such circumstances the of may Fourth Court the case. it is not funda be reversed Tex.R.App. 74.003(b); § if mental error and can be waived not raised Tex. Gov’t Code 41.2(b). Chapa sitting, P. With Justice the Indep. proper motion. See Buckholts appeals conditionally granted court of the Dist., 148; 632 Maritime Sch. S.W.2d Gulf petition for Monroes’ writ Towers, 556, v. 858 Warehouse Co. S.W.2d sought Union Pacific then mandamus relief 1993, denied); (Tex.App 559 writ . —Beaumont from this Court. Anderson, 799, Aguilar 809-810 v. 855 S.W.2d (T 1993, denied); ex.App. writ Paso — El may be removed from a Group, Inc. Amer. Sav. & Loan AmSav v. particular they either con case because are Ass’n, 482, (Tex.App 796 S.W.2d 485 . —Hous Const, V, stitutionally disqualified, Tex. art. th denied). 1990, Recog [14 ton writ Dist.] 11, they subject statutory § are because distinction, Rules of Pro nizing this our Civil strike, 74.053(d), § or be Tex. provide appellate review expressly cedure promul they cause recused rules are under judgment denial of a recu- from a final after 18b; 18a, gated by Tex.R. Crv. P. this Court. Thom sal motion. See Tex.R. Civ. Tex.R.App. grounds proce P. 16. The 579, as v. 860 581 S.W.2d type are dures for each of removal funda 1993, If the App. orig. proceeding). mentally generally Kilgarlin different. See — Waco appellate court determines the Bruch, Disqualification & and Recusal of his presiding the recusal abused over Maey’s Judges, 17 St. L.J. 599 When the motion and or her discretion a continues sit in violation of a recused, been the should have proscription, constitutional the appellate can trial court’s court reverse compel judge’s mandatory available to the new judgment for a trial before and remand disqualification showing without the no dif judge. procedure This different remedy by relator lacks an any court ferent than correction Ashworth, Energy Corp. Mitchell v. 943 Cf. appellate process. through error the normal (Tex.1997) 436, (addressing S.W.2d 437 observed, appellate As “an we have assigned mandatory disqualification judges merely it 74.053(d)). inadequate is not because under Tex. Gov’t Code This delay obtaining expense or than involve more sense, judg makes orders because ‘delay in [T]he writ.... ments who constitu rendered through appel getting questions decided tionally are disqualified void and without ef justify See, process late ... will not intervention Indep. e.g., fect. Buckholts Sch. Dist. Glaser, (Tex.1982); through the Fry by appellate courts extraordi- 148
429 ” nary respondent writ of Pack as a mandamus.’ Walker v. tation of (Tex.1992) er, (quoting nature Iley Hughes, important, may (1958)). testify concerning for the necessary facts, Bennett did. *3 appeals The court of abused its discretion testify concerning need for a to facts by issuing writ of mandamus when the com- justi- does not pertaining recusal motion plaining party an has testimony fy judge’s offering on the more See Tex.R. see also Civ. general per- matter of the existence Thomas v. We inject not impartiality. ceived should therefore hearings. themselves too far into recusal writ of mandamus and direct the court add; did, I Not should conditionally its withdraw order judges might. but other While granting against writ of mandamus being perceived partial, likes to think 22.002(a). court. simply a motion to not a recuse Justice, HECHT, concurring judge’s filed a character should not opinion. be as such. The treated less proceedings, voluntarily involved in recusal GONZALEZ, Justice, participate not did involuntarily, the better. in the decision. concurring. fully I concur opinion in the Court’s separately
write to add two brief observa-
tions.
First: that appeal The rule affords an
quate remedy for of a erroneous denial
motion to excep recuse cannot be without JONES, Petitioner, Tonia tions. In other contexts we have noted appropriate be when a has flagrantly procedural refused follow FOWLER, Respondent. Lisa rules, see Deloitte & Touche v. Fourteenth Court 1997), or ruling when almost certain to require a reversal of the final judgment on Packer, see Walker 8,May (Tex. 1992). I do not read preclude
Court’s such cases.
Second: Plaintiff’s motion for
this case that Judge asserted im-
partiality might reasonably be be- being represented
cause he defen-
dant’s counsel in a mandamus circumstances,
In many obviously, lawyer’s
representation of a can raise reason-
able doubts ability about impartial involving lawyer. ease Comm,
ABA on Ethics and Professional Re-
sponsibility, Op. Informal lawyer between concern, me,
of less it seems to when lawyer’s represen-
involves no than the more