in Re: Joe L. Lovell, Relator ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                                     NO. 07-02-0088-CV
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL E
    JUNE 27, 2002
    ______________________________
    IN RE JOE L. LOVELL
    _________________________________
    Before BOYD, C.J., and DODSON and DICKENSON, RJ.1
    Relator Joe L. Lovell filed this original proceeding seeking an extraordinary writ
    directing the Honorable Bill Sheehan to (1) vacate the judgment and orders in the original
    underlying lawsuit affecting relator, and (2) disqualify himself from conducting further
    proceedings in both the underlying lawsuit and the cause of action severed from it.
    Subsequent to the filing of his petition, relator requested this court to stay all proceedings
    in the trial court pending resolution of his petition. We entered an order temporarily
    staying further proceedings but later, on the request of one of the other parties to the
    underlying suit, partially vacated the stay so that a hearing might be held on a motion or
    1
    Retired Justices Carlton B. Dodson and Bob Dickenson are sitting by assignment.
    motions to recuse Judge Sheehan. That hearing was held, and Kelly Moore, Presiding
    Judge of the Ninth Administrative Judicial Region, entered orders in both the original
    cause and the severed cause recusing Judge Sheehan.
    Writs of mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation
    of a duty imposed by law where there is no other remedy by law. Johnson v. Fourth Court
    of Appeals, 
    700 S.W.2d 916
    , 917 (Tex. 1985). A remedy by appeal is not inadequate
    merely because it might involve more delay or cost than a mandamus action. In re Ford
    Motor Co., 
    988 S.W.2d 714
    , 721 (Tex. 1998). The burden is on the party seeking
    mandamus to establish that he has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Bay Area
    Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, 
    982 S.W.2d 371
    , 375 (Tex. 1998). Relator has failed to
    meet that burden with respect to his request that we vacate the judgment or orders in the
    underlying lawsuit affecting him. First, he has failed to direct us to the specific orders that
    should be vacated other than the judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered by Judge
    Sheehan.      Second, he has failed to show that the propriety of the judgment
    notwithstanding the verdict or other orders of the trial court cannot be attacked on direct
    appeal.
    As to relator’s request that we order Judge Sheehan to disqualify himself from
    conducting further proceedings in both the underlying original lawsuit and the severed
    cause of action, he has obtained the relief he sought by virtue of the orders of recusal
    2
    entered by Judge Moore. Therefore, this issue is moot, and there is no need for us to
    address it.
    Finding that mandamus relief is not appropriate, we overrule relator’s petition for
    extraordinary writ. The stay of proceedings previously entered by this court is vacated.
    Per Curiam
    Do not publish.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-02-00088-CV

Filed Date: 6/27/2002

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/7/2015