authentication requirements rule in Texas

2022“The failure to file a properly authenticated and adequate record justifies denying relator’s petition.” In re Bookman, Nos. 05-21-00492-CV, 05-21-00493-CV, 05-21-00494-CV, 05-21-00495-CV, 2021 WL 3828461 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 27, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759 ). 2 The petition for a writ of mandamus was properly certified in accordance with Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2021P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). “‘Documents that are attached to a properly prepared affidavit are sworn copies,’ while documents attached to an improperly prepared affidavit are not.” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443 , 445 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Henderson, No. 06-15- 00034-CR, 2015 WL 13522812 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 10, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding))). “‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly e

2025Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). “‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443 , 445–46 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2020 , orig. proceeding) (al

2025Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted) (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837 ). “‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443 , 445 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2020 , orig. proceeding) 3 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Smith

2025Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). “‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443 , 445–46 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2020 , orig. proceeding) (al

2025Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted) (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837 ). “‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443 , 445 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2020 , orig. proceeding) 3 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Smith

2025See id. “‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must ‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443 , 445 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2020 , orig. proceeding) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Smith, No. 05-19-00268-CV, 2019 WL 1305970 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)).

2015Courts have noted that, “because the record in a mandamus proceeding is 4 ("An affidavit is a 'statement in writing of a fact or facts signed by the party making it, sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths, and officially certified to by the officer under his seal of office.'") (quoting Goggin v. Grimes, 969 S.W.2d 135, 138 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (emphasis added). 11 assembled by the parties, this Court strictly enforces the authentication requirements of rule 52 of the rules of appellate procedure to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record.” (emph

2014See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). 2 In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, no pet.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding). 3 Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811 ; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proc

2014See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). 2 In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, no pet.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding). 3 Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811 ; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proc

2014See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). 2 In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, no pet.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding). 3 Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811 ; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proc

2014See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). 2 In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, no pet.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding). 3 Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811 ; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proc

2014See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). 2 In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, no pet.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding). 3 Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811 ; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proc

2014See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). 2 In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, no pet.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding). 3 Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811 ; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proc

2014See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). 2 In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, no pet.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding). 3 Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811 ; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proc

2014See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”). 2 In re Penney, No. 05-14-00503-CV, 2014 WL 2532307 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2014, no pet.); In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding). 3 Bledsoe, 41 S.W.3d at 811 ; see also In re Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835 , at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proc