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: Teletrac, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-13-00008-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 5, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Teletrac, Inc. seeks a writ of mandamus from the Eighth District Court of Appeals against Judge Bonnie Rangel of the 171st Judicial District Court in El Paso, Texas. To obtain mandamus relief, Teletrac must demonstrate two key elements: (1) that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and (2) that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. The burden lies with Teletrac to provide a sufficient record supporting its claim for relief, as outlined in Texas law. However, upon reviewing the record submitted, the Court concludes that Teletrac has failed to establish its entitlement to mandamus relief. Consequently, the request for mandamus relief is denied. The opinion is delivered by Justice Guadalupe Rivera, with participation from Chief Justice McClure and Justice Rodriguez.

Legal Issues Addressed

Burden of Proof for Mandamus Relief

Application: The petitioner is responsible for providing a sufficient record to support the claim for mandamus relief.

Reasoning: The burden lies with Teletrac to provide a sufficient record supporting its claim for relief, as outlined in Texas law.

Denial of Mandamus Relief

Application: Mandamus relief is denied when the petitioner fails to meet the necessary requirements.

Reasoning: However, upon reviewing the record submitted, the Court concludes that Teletrac has failed to establish its entitlement to mandamus relief.

Mandamus Relief Requirements

Application: To secure mandamus relief, the petitioner must show a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal.

Reasoning: To obtain mandamus relief, Teletrac must demonstrate two key elements: (1) that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and (2) that there is no adequate remedy by appeal.