In re Smith Cnty.

33 Citing cases

  1. In re Tex. Health & Human Servs. Comm'n

    No. 12-24-00296-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 31, 2024)

    A court's duty to dismiss a case as moot arises from a proper respect for the judicial branch's unique role under our constitution to decide contested cases. In re Smith County, 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (citing Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex. 1993)).

  2. In re Travelers Indem. Co.

    No. 12-22-00310-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 16, 2022)

    A court's duty to dismiss a case as moot arises from a proper respect for the judicial branch's unique role under our constitution to decide contested cases. In re Smith County, 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (citing Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Tex. 1993)).

  3. Double Diamond-Delaware, Inc. v. Alfonso

    No. 05-18-01063-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 27, 2020)

    "An opinion is advisory when it neither constitutes specific relief to a litigant nor affects legal relations." In re Smith County, 521 S.W.3d 447, 453 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.). To establish mootness, the proponent bears a "heavy burden" of showing that its subsequent actions made it "absolutely clear" that the challenged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur.

  4. Toma Integrity, Inc. v. Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corp.

    No. 06-19-00005-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "The mootness doctrine implicates subject[-]matter jurisdiction [and] 'prevents courts from rendering advisory opinions.'" In re Smith Cty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 453 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (citing City of Dallas v. Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d 412, 416 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). "A case becomes moot if . . . the issues presented are no longer 'live' . . . i.e., there is no action on the merits that a court could take that would affect the parties' rights or interests."

  5. In re Kaddatz

    No. 02-23-00336-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    (quoting Holcombe v. Fowler, 9 S.W.2d 1028, 1028 (1928) (orig. proceeding)); see also Manion v. Lockhart, 114 S.W.2d 216, 219 (1938) (orig. proceeding) (citing Holcombe, 118 Tex. at 42, 9 S.W.2d at 1028); see, e.g., Dow Chem. Co., 909 S.W.2d at 504-05 (dismissing mandamus petition as moot because rejoinder of claims requested in mandamus petition was impossible since severed claims had been removed to federal court and could not be resolved in state court); In re Smith Cnty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.- Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus as moot because recordings of closed governmental meetings had been published as requested in mandamus petition); In re Garza, No. 07-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL 5255162, at *2 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Oct. 14, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (noting that mandamus directing county judge to certify write-in candidate would not place candidate on ballot as requested in mandamus petition because county judge does not prepare ballots); In re Patton, No. 06-12-00024-CR, 2012 WL 629153, at *1 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Feb. 28, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus petition seeking order compelling trial court's answer to petition for bill of review because equitable bill of review is unavailable in criminal cases); In re Charleston, No. 06-10-00037-CR, 2010 WL 1878690, at *2 (Tex. App.- Texarkana May 12, 2010, orig. proceeding)

  6. In re Volt Power, LLC

    No. 12-23-00047-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 5, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, any argument with respect to these requests is now moot.SeeInre Smith County, 521 S.W.3d 447, 453 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (case becomes moot when controversy no longer exists, i.e., issues presented are no longer live or parties lack legally cognizable interest in outcome; we will not issue mandamus if it would be useless or unavailing). This leaves at issue Requests 39, 65, 70, 71, 83, 85, and 91 from set one and Requests 40, 53, 53a, 53d, and 54 from set two.

  7. Aim Media Tex. v. City of Odessa

    No. 11-22-00052-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 16, 2023)

    Texas courts are split regarding the application of the public interest exception. See, e.g., In re Smith Cnty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2017, no pet.) (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Houston Chronicle II, 196 S.W.3d at 400 (refusing to recognize the public interest exception); Securtec, Inc. v. Cnty. of Gregg, 106 S.W.3d 803, 810-11 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (recognizing the public interest exception); Ngo v. Ngo, 133 S.W.3d 688, 692 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2003, no pet.) (recognizing the public interest exception); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Carmichael, No. 05-96-00990-CV, 1998 WL 122409, at *1 n.3 (Tex. App.-Dallas March 20, 1998, no pet.)

  8. McBride Operating, LLC v. Allen

    No. 12-22-00248-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 22, 2022)

    See In re Smith County, 521 S.W.3d 447, 454 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (court has duty to dismiss case as moot); Sonic-Carrollton V, L.P. v.Millenium Jaguar of Tex., Inc., No. 05-07-00567-CV, 2007 WL 2703139, at *1 (Tex. App.- Dallas Sept. 18, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.).

  9. In re MTG Mgmt.

    No. 03-22-00733-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 2, 2022)

    See Tex.R.App.P. 52.8; see also Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) (explaining that "a case becomes moot if, since the time of filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties," meaning that "the court's action on the merits cannot affect the parties' rights or interests"); In re Kellogg Brown &Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (noting that case becomes moot if controversy ceases to exist between parties "at any stage of the legal proceedings"); Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000) (concluding that discovery dispute "became moot when" party "complied with the trial court's discovery order"); In re Smith Cnty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 454-55 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus petition as moot because granting requested relief would have no practical effect and would "only amount to an advisory opinion").

  10. In re Young

    No. 13-22-00270-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 15, 2022)

    See Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) ("A case becomes moot if, since the time of filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties-that is, if the issues presented are no longer 'live,' or if the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome."); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) ("A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal."); see also In re Smith County, 521 S.W.3d 447, 453-55 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we grant relator's motion to dismiss, and we dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus as moot.