You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

in Re BASF FINA Petrochemical Limited Partnership, ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc., and BASF Corporation

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-03-00657-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 17, 2004; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Relators BASF FINA Petrochemicals Limited Partnership, ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc., and BASF Corporation filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against a March 28, 2003 order by Judge Kathleen Stone. The order granted the relators costs for document-related expenses incurred due to subpoenas from H.B. Zachry Company and Zachry Construction Corporation but denied their request for reimbursement of attorneys' fees. Following a settlement in the underlying lawsuit, the trial court issued a dismissal order on June 4, 2003, resolving all pending claims and allowing the relators to appeal directly. The court determined that the relators had a sufficient remedy through direct appeal, leading to the dismissal of the mandamus petition as moot. All pending motions related to the parties' briefing were granted. The panel included Justices Taft, Jennings, and Bland.

Legal Issues Addressed

Mandamus Relief

Application: The legal principle of mandamus relief is applied to evaluate whether there is an adequate remedy through direct appeal, determining the appropriateness of the writ.

Reasoning: The court determined that the relators had a sufficient remedy through direct appeal, leading to the dismissal of the mandamus petition as moot.

Mootness of Mandamus Petition

Application: The principle of mootness is applied to assess the relevance of the mandamus petition following a settlement and the availability of direct appeal, resulting in its dismissal.

Reasoning: Following a settlement in the underlying lawsuit, the trial court issued a dismissal order on June 4, 2003, resolving all pending claims and allowing the relators to appeal directly.

Reimbursement of Costs and Attorneys' Fees

Application: The court's order addressed the relators' entitlement to costs related to document expenses due to subpoenas, but denied reimbursement for attorneys' fees, reflecting the limits of recoverable legal expenses.

Reasoning: The order granted the relators costs for document-related expenses incurred due to subpoenas from H.B. Zachry Company and Zachry Construction Corporation but denied their request for reimbursement of attorneys' fees.