In re Torres

3 Citing cases

  1. In re City of Edinburg

    No. 13-23-00131-CV (Tex. App. May. 1, 2023)

    In this regard, mandamus relief is available when a trial court litigates the merits of a case and delays ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction. See City of Galveston v. Gray, 93 S.W.3d 587, 591 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (combined app. & orig. proceeding); see also In re Torres, 2018 WL 5269227, at *1-3; In re Torres, No. 13-17-00172-CV, 2017 WL 2665986, at *5 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 21, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Tex. Health Res., No. 05-16-01135-CV, 2016 WL 5937790, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 12, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

  2. McCann v. Torres

    NUMBER 13-17-00505-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 2, 2018)

    Appellees petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to vacate the discovery orders, and we conditionally granted the writ, concluding that the trial court should not proceed on the merits of the suit until the jurisdictional issues have been determined. In re Torres, No. 13-17-00172-CV, 2017 WL 2665986, at *6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 21, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). The trial court subsequently granted appellees' motion to dismiss and this appeal followed.

  3. Vitol, Inc. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist.

    529 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. App. 2017)   Cited 11 times

    Therefore, we conclude the trial court properly could have determined that Vitol's requested additional discovery was not material or necessary in determining HCAD's plea to the jurisdiction. SeeJoe, 145 S.W.3d at 162 ; Quested, 440 S.W.3d at 283 ; Klumb, 405 S.W.3d at 227–28 ; see alsoIn re Torres, No. 13-17-00172-CV, 2017 WL 2665986, at *5 n.9 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 21, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) ("[T]rial courts act within their discretion in denying continuances of hearings on pleas to the jurisdiction based on a request for more discovery where the requested discovery does not impact the jurisdictional analysis in the case."). Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vitol's motion to continue the hearing on HCAD's plea, we overrule Vitol's second issue.