In re Weinheimer

Full title: IN RE MARGARET J. WEINHEIMER

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi — Edinburg

Date published: Jul 26, 2007

No. 13-07-287-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2007)

Opinion

No. 13-07-287-CV

Delivered and filed July 26, 2007.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Before Justices YAÑEZ, BENAVIDES, and VELA.

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

PER CURIAM.

Relator, Margaret J. Weinheimer, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and request for an emergency stay in the above cause. The Court granted the motion for emergency stay and requested a response from the real party in interest, Edmund Weinheimer.

The real party in interest subsequently filed a motion to abate this original proceeding to permit a successor judge to reconsider the respondent's orders at issue herein. We granted said motion and abated this proceeding to allow the parties to seek reconsideration by the current judge as required by Rule 7.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 129 (Tex. 2004); see also Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569, 572 (Tex. 1984); State v. Olsen, 163 Tex. 449, 360 S.W.2d 402, 403 (Tex. 1962). We lifted the stay previously granted by this Court for purposes of this abatement order.

We have now received and reviewed the successor judge's ruling on relator's motion to reconsider. Relator has moved to reinstate this original proceeding. The real party in interest has filed a response to the petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for sanctions.

We GRANT relator's motion to reinstate this original proceeding. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and response thereto is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

We have carefully considered the motion for sanctions. The motion, as it pertains to this original proceeding, is DENIED. We are confident that the trial court will take any steps deemed necessary to ensure that the parties and their counsel strictly comply with their ethical and professional obligations in further proceedings below.