Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision Even if he did misunderstand the import of Canales and the statute, the petitioner has directed this court to no mandatory language that would require the trial judge to deny the motion and remain in place as the trial judge. FACTS:On Feb. 3, 2002, Theresa Naylor was ordered to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to pay child support. The judge in the case, Judge Ray Grisham, heard evidence on May 16 and dismissed the contempt order. On June 30, Leonard Naylor filed a motion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the contempt proceeding. Meanwhile, on June 26, Judge Don Jarvis was assigned to the court for five days starting July 14. On July 18, Judge Jarvis signed an order reinstating the case. Theresa filed on objection to Judge Jarvis sitting in the case, and Judge Jarvis granted the objection, stating it was granted after hearing the evidence and argument of counsel. Leonard now files for a writ of mandamus, asking the appeals court to order Judge Jarvis to vacate his order granting Theresa’s objection to him and continue presiding over the case. Specifically, he argues that because Government Code �74.053(c) requires any objection to an assigned judge to be made before the first hearing in the case, and because Theresa’s motion was filed after the first hearing, Judge Jarvis improperly applied a mandatory statute. HOLDING:Writ denied. The court first confirms that mandamus is the proper procedural tool Leonard should use because contempt orders are generally not appealable. Nonetheless, the court rules that Judge Jarvis was not under a mandatory obligation to remain on the case since Theresa’s objection was filed late. He would have been obligated to remove himself if her objection was timely, but the statute does not require him not to remove himself when the objection is untimely. The court finds that even if Judge Jarvis misunderstood the statute and relevant case law, such as In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. 2001) (by ruling on the objection instead of dismissing it as untimely), Leonard has not produced any evidence of mandatory language requiring Judge Jarvis to deny the motion and remain in place as the trial judge. OPINION:Ross, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.