Narrative Opinion Summary
Petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator Alan Uresti on February 24, 2011, has been denied by the court. The court evaluated the petition and determined that Uresti is not entitled to the relief he sought. The ruling is based on the procedural guidelines outlined in TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). This proceeding is related to Cause No. 2006-CI-09548, In the Interest of J.A.U., in the 288th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, with Judge Sol Casseb, III presiding. Uresti named both Judge Casseb and Judge Peter Sakai, presiding judge of the 225th Judicial District Court, as respondents in the case.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Procedural Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of the writ of mandamus was based on the procedural guidelines outlined in Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.8(a).
Reasoning: The ruling is based on the procedural guidelines outlined in TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
Denial of Writ of Mandamussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Alan Uresti, indicating that he is not entitled to the relief sought.
Reasoning: Petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator Alan Uresti on February 24, 2011, has been denied by the court.
Judicial Proceedings and Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case is related to a proceeding in the 288th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, involving Judge Sol Casseb, III, as part of the judicial process.
Reasoning: This proceeding is related to Cause No. 2006-CI-09548, In the Interest of J.A.U., in the 288th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, with Judge Sol Casseb, III presiding.
Naming of Judicial Respondentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In his petition, Uresti named both Judge Sol Casseb, III, and Judge Peter Sakai as respondents.
Reasoning: Uresti named both Judge Casseb and Judge Peter Sakai, presiding judge of the 225th Judicial District Court, as respondents in the case.