Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re TXU Electric Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 2001No. 01-0547Published

1ConcurrenceChief Justice Phillips

filed a concurring opinion in which Justice ENOCH and Justice GODBEY (Assigned) join.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available “only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 883, 840 (Tex.1992). To obtain mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Id. at 839-40. A party establishes that no adequate remedy at law exists by showing that the party is in real danger of permanently losing its substantial rights.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. CSR LTD. v. LinkTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. WittigTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Moody v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  4. City of Corpus Christi v. Public Utility Commission of TexasTexas Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Pope v. FergusonTexas Supreme Court · 1969

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API