ministerial act requirement in Texas

2023The ministerial-act requirement “is satisfied if the relator can show a clear right to the relief sought,” which “is shown when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled . . ., and clearly controlling legal principles.” Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d at 533 .

2023The ministerial-act requirement “is satisfied if the relator can show a clear right to the relief sought,” which “is shown when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled . . . , and clearly controlling legal principles.” Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d at 533 .

2024“The ministerial-act requirement is satisfied if the relator can show a clear right to the relief sought.” Id.

2021App. 1981)). –4– “The ministerial-act requirement is satisfied if the relator can show a clear right to the relief sought.” Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 .1 Equitable principles are necessarily involved when we consider whether mandamus should issue.

2012Rodriguez v. Marquez, 4 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. Crim.App.1999); Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945 , 947 & 947 n. 2 (Tex. Crim.App.1992); State ex rel.

2001Rodriguez v. Marquez, 4 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex.Crim.

2024“A clear right to the [requested] relief is shown when the facts and circumstances [require] but one rational decision ‘under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and clearly controlling legal principles.’” Id. (quoting Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805, 810 (Tex. Crim.

2019A clear right to the relief sought is established “when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and clearly controlling legal principles.” Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805, 810 (Tex. Crim.

2025App. 2007) (the ministerial act requirement “is satisfied if the relator can show he has ‘a clear right to the relief sought’—that is to say, ‘when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision’ under unequivocal, well-settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and clearly controlling legal principles.”); see also Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim.

2017App. 2015) (citing Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Tex. Crim.

2001Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (opinion on reh’g) (citations omitted). 3 We have also described the ministerial act requirement as a requirement that the relator have “a clear right to the relief sought.” State ex rel.

2001Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (opinion on reh'g) (citations omitted). [3] We have also described the ministerial act requirement as a requirement that the relator have "a clear right to the relief sought." State ex rel.

2007The court of criminal appeals has described the ministerial act requirement as a requirement that the relator have “a clear right to the relief sought.” Id.

2002Lee could have satisfied this ministerial act requirement by demonstrating-to respondent “a clear right to the relief sought.” See id.

2021Medina, 475 S.W.3d at 297 .

2017With respect to the ministerial-act requirement, an act is considered ministerial if it “does not involve a discretionary or judicial decision.” In re Medina, 475 S.W.3d 291, 298 (Tex. Crim.

2023The Court also relies on Ex parte Watson, 601 S.W.2d 350, 351 (Tex. Crim.

2021App. 2016) (noting that “the appealing party carries the burden to ensure that the record on appeal is sufficient to resolve the issues presented” and that “the failure to provide a sufficient appellate record precludes appellate review of a claim.”); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (noting that relators seeking mandamus relief carry the burden to provide a sufficient record to establish a right to mandamus relief).

2021App. 2014) (“The ministerial-act requirement is satisfied if the relator can show a clear right to the relief sought because the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled, and clearly controlling legal principles.”)). 11 See, e.g., London v. State, 490 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Tex. Crim.

2018Weeks, 391 S.W.3d at 122 ; see also Powell v. Hocker, 516 S.W.3d 488, 495 (Tex. Crim.

2015The court has also described the ministerial act requirement as a requirement that the relator have "a clear right to the relief soughtI"FState ex-rel Wade v. Mays 689 S.W.2d. 945, 947 (Tex. Crim.

2013Tharp, 2012 Tex. Crim.

2008See In re Taylor , 39 S.W.3d 406 , 411–12 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Ramirez , 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding)).

2008See In re Taylor , 39 S.W.3d 406 , 411–12 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Ramirez , 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding)).