In Re City of Edinburg v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00238-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE CITY OF EDINBURG

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

Relator City of Edinburg filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which it

asserted that the trial court abused its discretion by “freezing” discovery deadlines.

However, relator has now filed a motion to withdraw its petition for writ of mandamus.

According to relator’s motion, the parties have reached an agreement regarding the

discovery at issue, and the petition for writ of mandamus is now moot.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that
addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the
distinction between opinions and memorandum opinions).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the foregoing events, is of the opinion that this original proceeding has been rendered

moot. See In re Contract Freighters, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex. 2022) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex.

2012); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig.

proceeding). Accordingly, we construe relator’s motion to withdraw its petition for writ of

mandamus as a motion to dismiss, and as construed, we grant relator’s motion. We

dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

JON WEST
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
10th day of April, 2026.

2