merits of any claim in Texas

2015That claim is not at issue in this appeal. 17 Order at 9-10 (quoting Lykos, 330 S.W.3d at 911 ). 18 Id. at 8-10; see also id. at 5 n.3 (similarly terming “persuasive” arguments urged by amici “Constitutional and Criminal Law Experts”). 8 through pretrial habeas, however meritorious it may potentially be, without first determining, as a “threshold” matter, that the claim is properly “cognizable” through that procedural mechanism—that is, whether the court can properly decide the merits of the claim at that juncture or must leave it to be addressed through other trial-level proceedings and any s

2015That claim is not at issue in this appeal. 17 Order at 9-10 (quoting Lykos, 330 S.W.3d at 911 ). 18 Id. at 8-10; see also id. at 5 n.3 (similarly terming “persuasive” arguments urged by amici “Constitutional and Criminal Law Experts”). 8 through pretrial habeas, however meritorious it may potentially be, without first determining, as a “threshold” matter, that the claim is properly “cognizable” through that procedural mechanism—that is, whether the court can properly decide the merits of the claim at that juncture or must leave it to be addressed through other trial-level proceedings and any s

2025In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 , 94–95 (1998), the United States Supreme Court made clear that a court must first establish Article III standing and subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing the merits of any claim.

2023See In re K.M.B., 606 S.W.3d 889 , 894 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.); In re H.J.W., 302 S.W.3d 511 , 513 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); Holley, 864 S.W.2d at 706.

2023Id. at 843 . 2We express no opinion on the merits of any challenge to the ultimate admissibility of the causation testimony in Dr. Sanchez’s counteraffidavit. 3 Estrada further argues that Defendants are not entitled to mandamus relief because they waited almost a year to seek reconsideration of and mandamus relief from the trial court’s order.

2021Further, the rule states that “[t]he arbitrator is not empowered to redetermine the merits of any claim already decided.” Id.

2016Id.

1991Otherwise the courts and the parties must expend great energy, not on the merits of the dispute settlement, but on simply deciding whether a court has the power to hear a case.... ” United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 308 , 90 S.Ct. 2117 [2139], 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970) (footnotes omitted) (plurality opinion). 3 *224 As such, we will not interpret Article 44.01 to require a preliminary determination of whether the instrument purporting to be an indictment in the case under consideration is in fact a true indictment returned by a duly organized grand jury before the appellate court is allowed t

1991Otherwise the courts and the parties must expend great energy, not on the merits of the dispute settlement, but on simply deciding whether a court has the power to hear a case.... ” United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267, 308 , 90 S.Ct. 2117 [2139], 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970) (footnotes omitted) (plurality opinion). 3 *224 As such, we will not interpret Article 44.01 to require a preliminary determination of whether the instrument purporting to be an indictment in the case under consideration is in fact a true indictment returned by a duly organized grand jury before the appellate court is allowed t

1970Worth &a& Club v. She ard 125 Tex. 339 , 83 S.W 2d bbo 1935 * NO. 2 v. Mann, 135 Tex. 286 , $42 S!i. The onlv Rower to sdjudicate is found in Section 5 of the act, and therefore wk are of the opinion that It ls,,onl in a Section 5 procedure that Texas Water Rights Comiii&ion has the power to evaluate the merits of any claim filed under Article 7542a.