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: Progressive Waste Solutions of TX, Inc. IESI Corporation and Howard Lee Franklin, Jr.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-13-01249-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 19, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas has denied the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Progressive Waste Solutions of TX, Inc., IESI Corporation, and Howard Lee Franklin, Jr. The relators argued that the trial judge made an error by granting a motion for a new trial. However, the court determined that the relators failed to demonstrate entitlement to the relief they sought, referencing relevant Texas appellate procedure and case law. The ruling was issued by Justice David Lewis, with the court concluding that the facts and issues were sufficiently known to the parties involved, obviating the need for further elaboration.

Legal Issues Addressed

Error in Granting Motion for New Trial

Application: The relators contended that the trial judge erred in granting a motion for a new trial, but the appellate court found no basis for this claim under the applicable legal standards.

Reasoning: The relators argued that the trial judge made an error by granting a motion for a new trial.

Sufficiency of Known Facts and Issues

Application: The court concluded that further elaboration of the facts and issues was unnecessary as they were sufficiently known to the parties involved.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the facts and issues were sufficiently known to the parties involved, obviating the need for further elaboration.

Writ of Mandamus under Texas Appellate Procedure

Application: The Court of Appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus on the grounds that the relators failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief under the relevant legal standards.

Reasoning: The relators argued that the trial judge made an error by granting a motion for a new trial. However, the court determined that the relators failed to demonstrate entitlement to the relief they sought, referencing relevant Texas appellate procedure and case law.