OPINION
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In Re Jeffrey Cook (Tex. 2011)(Per Curiam Opinion)
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
FULL TEXT OF OPINION [ forthcoming ]
Opinions are available in pdf from the Court's website. Follow docket-number hotlink or click the case-style
hyperlink to view or retrieve pdf file.
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW: Court of Appeals
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also see: Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
In re Jeffrey Cook, No. 10-0855 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(per curiam opinion)
(reason for grant of new trial required, even if original judge replaced)(mandamus granted).
EXCERPT FROM TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S OPINION
The relator asks us to decide whether a trial court abused its discretion when it issued an order
granting a motion for new trial “based on all grounds in the motion.” While this case was pending,
however, the judge who signed the order resigned, and we remanded the case pursuant to Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b). The successor trial judge then entered an order stating only that
his predecessor’s ruling “should remain unchanged.” We recently held that a successor trial court’s
order reaffirming the original trial court’s grant of a motion for new trial was “effectively an order
refusing to enter judgment on the jury verdict and affects the rights of the parties no less than did the
orders of the original judge,” and we concluded that the relator in that case was “entitled to know
those reasons just as much as it would be entitled to know the reasons for the orders entered by the
former trial judge.” In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204, 214 (Tex. 2009).
Accordingly, we conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the successor trial court to specify
the reasons it refused to enter judgment on the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. Id. at 215.
Because the successor trial court judge in this case did not state sufficient reasons for his ruling,
contrary to our holding in In re Columbia, we conditionally grant relief.
Without hearing oral argument, TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c), we conditionally grant Jeffrey’s petition for writ of
mandamus and direct the successor trial court to specify the reasons why it refused to enter judgment on the
jury verdict. See In re Columbia, 290 S.W.3d at 215 (requiring reasons to be “clearly identified and reasonably
specific”).
We are confident that the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not.
IN RE JEFFREY COOK; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-10-00068-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-08-10)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the writ of
mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
(Justice Lehrmann not sitting)
Link to Electronic Briefs in this case: 10-0855 IN RE JEFFREY COOK