adequate remedy for any error in Texas

2010Cf. In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419-20 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (pertaining to availability of “presuit depositions” and noting that if relators’ claim is 6 true and law prohibits those depositions, then scheduled depositions cannot be “untaken”).

2010Cf. In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419-20 (Tex.2008) (orig.proceeding) (pertaining to availability of “presuit depositions” and noting that if relators’ claim is true and law prohibits those depositions, then scheduled depositions cannot be “un-taken”).

2002E.g., Tonahill, 446 S.W.2d at 302 (appeal adequate remedy for legally insufficient property description); City of Bryan v. Moehlman, 155 Tex. 45, 48, 282 S.W.2d 687, 689 (1955) (appeal adequate remedy if special commissioner disqualified); Blasingame, 800 S.W.2d at 394-95 (appeal adequate remedy where trial court quashed subpoenas issued by special commissioners).

2002E.g., Tonahill , 446 S.W.2d at 302 (appeal adequate remedy for legally insufficient property description); City of Bryan v. Moehlman , 155 Tex. 45, 48 , 282 S.W.2d 687, 689 (1955) (appeal adequate remedy if special commissioner disqualified); Blasingame , 800 S.W.2d at 394-95 (appeal adequate remedy where trial court quashed subpoenas issued by special commissioners).

2002E.g., Tonahill, 446 S.W.2d at 302 (appeal adequate remedy for legally insufficient property description); City of Bryan v. Moehlman, 155 Tex. 45, 48, 282 S.W.2d 687, 689 (1955) (appeal adequate remedy if special commissioner disqualified); Blasingame, 800 S.W.2d at 394-95 (appeal adequate remedy where trial court quashed subpoenas issued by special commissioners).

2002E.g., Tonahill, 446 S.W.2d at 302 (appeal adequate remedy for legally insufficient property description); City of Bryan v. Moehlman, 155 Tex. 45, 48, 282 S.W.2d 687, 689 (1955) (appeal adequate remedy if special commissioner disqualified); Blasingame, 800 S.W.2d at 394-95 (appeal adequate remedy where trial court quashed subpoenas issued by special commissioners).

2024“The Texas Supreme Court has long held that the right of appeal and trial de novo affords a party adequate relief for any errors occurring in the proceedings before the special commissioners ‘up to and including the award of the special commissioners.’” City of Dall. v. Martin, 711 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (citing Tonahill v. Gulf States Utils.

2024It is well-settled that in condemnation proceedings, “the right to appeal by trial de novo affords a party an adequate remedy for any error occurring in the administrative phase of the proceeding.” In re State, 85 S.W.3d at 876 .

2024Any error that occurs during the administrative phase that affects the judicial phase “typically can be reviewed in the trial de novo.” In re State, 85 S.W.3d at 876 (“Texas courts have routinely held that the right to appeal by trial de novo affords a party an adequate remedy for any error occurring in the administrative phase of the proceeding.”).

2019See In re Moreno, 4 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief because relators have an adequate remedy for the grant of the bill of review by appeal of the eventual final judgment in the underlying case); see also Patrick O’Connor & Associates, L.P. v. Wang Inv.