mandamus remedy requirement in Texas

2024“The extraordinary nature of the mandamus remedy and the requirement that a party seeking mandamus relief exercise diligence both mandate that arguments not presented to the 3 trial court cannot first be considered in an original proceeding seeking mandamus.” In re Floyd, No. 05-16-00491-CV, 2016 WL 2353874 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see In re Abney, 486 S.W.3d 135, 138 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2016, orig. proceeding) (“arguments withheld from the trial court will not first be considered in a petition for writ of mandamus”).

2023“The extraordinary nature of the mandamus remedy and the requirement that a party seeking mandamus relief exercise diligence both mandate that arguments not presented to the trial court cannot first be considered in an original proceeding seeking mandamus.” In re Floyd, No. 05-16-00491-CV, 2016 WL 2353874 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see In re Abney, 486 S.W.3d 135, 138 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2016, orig. proceeding) (“arguments withheld from the trial court will not first be considered in a petition for writ of mandamus”).

2024Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding)).

2023To the extent relators argue that the trial court abused its discretion by granting real party’s rule 202 petition because real party failed to overcome relators’ assertion No. 22-0288, 2023 WL 5655867 , at *4 (Tex. Sept. 1, 2023) (per curiam) (noting that while an attorney’s statements are not evidence unless made under oath, the oath requirement is waived if the opponent fails to object when she knows or should know that an objection is necessary) (citing Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam)). –3– of immunity, relators raised this argument in a plea to the jurisdicti