TIM. 3. EST SIKT- GF p_ 1 SIXTH COURT DF APPEALS Bi-State jusrcice Building . Nutlith State Avenue, Box 20 3 Texarkana, Texas 75501 Pxw-ne ND. (uns) vas-5046 Pax Nu. (905) ws-5054 TO: Demand 3-: Hassan, PC ATTN: WiI]ia.1n Pieratt Piltaffer ADDRESS: CITY, STATE: FAX ND.: 512-519-2495 CONFIRM NU FROM: MoI1}=Pate, clerk DATE TRAINISIVIITTED: TRANSMITTED: 2750 pm NUMBER. GF PELGES TRANSMITTED: (Including thia Page) NOTES: UE--12-00026-CV, copy of 01:-ininn andjudgment U6-1 2-00023-CV copy of order THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FDR THE INDIVIDUAL TCI ITIS FIDDHESSED. THIS MESSAGE MAT THAT I5 PRNILEQED EIR IF THE HEADER DF THIS MESSAGE 15 NDT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT .ANT DISSEMINATIDN, DFI CDPVINE DF THIS CUHIMUNICATIDN IS IF IIFDIJ HAVE RECEIVED THIS DUMMUHIDETION IN EFIRDR, PLEASE LIS IMMEDILTELT TELEPHONE, THE SHOWN BELOW. PLEASE RETURN THE DRIGINAI. MESSAGE U5 ll-T THE FIU DFIE55 DN THIS COVER SHEET. THANK TDU. Wi. 3.1011 3:I11P'ltl SIXTH COU1T 0F 1 -f 1 - s..soUa.?E_ Court sat., JosaR.Motut1ss,II1 Sixth Appeffare Desitait. atrrasv Te'-ras BI-STATE JUSTICE JACK STRTE LINE 420 Bausv C. 'Sm Thursday, lvlateb 08, 2012 Hon. Amy lvlarlyse Burgert Zabel Freeman 420 Heights Houston, TX 3100? Hon. James A, Freeman Zabel Freeman 420 Heights Houston, TX 22007 Hon. John D. Pieratt Attomey at Law 1301 W2501 St, Ste 510 Austin, TX 73705 Hon. B. Deruond Sc Hassan, PLLC 2300 Post Galt Blvd, Ste 4100 Houston, TX 37056 Hon. Meagan Hassan Demoud tis Hassan, PLLC 2S00 Post Galt Blvd, Ste 4100 Houston, TX Hon. Thomas A. Zabel Zabel Freeman 420 Heights Houston, 2700? 1-lon. Clyde lvi. Siebman Siebman, Burg, Phillips SEL Smith LLP 300 Te:-:as St Sherman, TX 25090 Hon. Jeffrey S. Wolff Fulbright 5.1: Jaworski, LLP 1301 St, Ste 5100 1-Ioustou, TX 27010 Hon. _To}'l'v1. Solovvay Fulbright ?5 .1 avvorsl-ti, LLP 1301 1\f1e1{irmey St, Ste 5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Hon. M. Mark Lasher Lasher 3: Assoeiates 52-4 Spruce Street Texarkana, TX 25504 Hon. Stephen K. Carroll Fulbright 3; .1 avvorslti 1301 St, Ste 5100 Houston, TX 71010 Hon. William Pieratt Demon-:l Demond Ee Hassan, PLLC 2300 Post Oak Blvd, Ste 4100 Houston, TX 73055 ua: Appellate ease Number: Trial Court,Case Number: Style: In Re; The Crawford Family Farm Partnership Mali. S. 2012 SIXTH COURT UF HEI, M9 The Court entered' its order this date in the referenced whereby said Petition for 'Writ of ivlaiicianitls if DENIED- A true oopy of this Cou1't's Opinion and Judgment is EHGIOSEC1- Respectfully snbinitted, Debra K. Autrey, Clerk 1' BE, 5251 Deputy (wfcopy of enoiosures) I-Ion. William I-I. Harris SIXTH CF EC. 649 TU1 1.11 zu'Psi ?5 sf- -.fn I igx 5 - -"ff - 'sliicg 3 asap: 1, 1_4- "1 ,i In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. D6-12-00026-CV INRE: CRAWFORD FAMILY FARM PARTNERSHIP Original Mandamus Proceeding Before 1'vIo1'1'iss, CJ., Carter and Moseley, I Memorandum Opinion by Chief .Tustice Morriss MRF 3.2012 SIXTH CF lil 649 3. 5 MEIVIORANDUM OPINION Crawford Family Farm Partnership (Crawford) has tiled a petition for writ ofmandamus in which it seeks to convince this Court to order the trial court to set aside its denial of CravtfEord"s requested injunctive relief-and also to gent ternporary injunctive relief-pending the outcome of the condemnation case against Crawford filed by Transilanada Keystone Pipeline. Cravvford`s tiling reached this Court late Friday afternoon and requested emergency relieil, which we chose to grant only in an abundance of caution to preserve our jurisdiction, and vrhich, given time to review, we conclude should be dissolved in our disposition of this rnandanius. We grant the e:o:raord.in.ary relief ofrnandarnus only when the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In ra Tecra Rocket", LP., 256 257 (Tex- 2008). In this case, the order at bar is one refusing. et injunction. ditch an order is explicitly appealable. TEX. Civ. PRAC. REM. Cot:-E .a.t~1N. Cwest Supp. 201 1). The remedy of mandamus is therefore not available. Crawford's petition asks this Court that, if we find ive cannot consider the mandamtis request, ive reiile the case as a direct interlocutory appeal. The jurisdiction of a court of appeals is invoked by timely Tiling documents showing a bona fide intent to appeal. See v. Dormer, 959 615, 616 1997). In an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal rnust be filed within twenty days after tbe _iudgrrient is signed. TEX. R. APP. P. The document thus indicates the clear desire to bring an appeal required of an effective notice of appeal, and we will so treat it. 2 3. 2012 SIXTH CF 10.649 3. In "i,1J? deny Ijlg pgfirign fm- wi-it of ntandainus and Withdraw 0111* relief issued io -:zomteotion with the By separate order dated this date, Ieima Crmfordts 51513 as appeal and mai-te further orders relative to that appeal. Josh R. Morriss, Chief Date Submitted: March 3, 2012 Date Decided: March S, 2012 F. LEE The If Sntih Distric 0 'rss s. I 5 2912 3 Tevaraearie, 'tieam Debra Clerk rt* 3.2012 matt: 31:-att: it-=-Qtr; Dt fi-HeCourt uf Appeals Sixth Appellate District nf Texas In re: Crawford Family Fermi Original Mandemue Proceeding Partnership Opinion delivered by Chief Jtietice Ne. U6-12-00026-CV Mei-ries, Justice Carter and Justice Meseley participating As stated in the Cc-tu-t's epinien ef this date, we find that Relater is net entitled te the relief seught. Therefore, we deny the petition. ATTEST: Debra Autrey, Clerk RENDERED MARCH E, 2012 BY ORDER. OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, CI-IIEF JUSTICE 101122. 3. 21112 SIXTH '20,|iT CF I ti Cures Iusnea Iosn R. Iv1orua1ss,I1I ITJSTIGEE Ja-1:1-1 Caarsa BAILEY C. IMIUSELEY Hon. John D. Pieratt - Attorney at Law 1301111 25th St, Ste 510 Austin, TX Hon. M- Mark Lesher Lesher Sa Assoeiates 524 Spmoe Street Tertarkana, TX 75504 I-Ion. William Pierart Dernontl Demand E: Hassan, PLLC 2300 Pest Gait Blvd, Ste 4100 Houston, TK N056 Hon. Cijrde M. Siobmali Sthnian, Burg, Phillips 3; Smith, LLP 300 Texas St Sherman, TX 75 090 Hon. Jeffrey S. Wolff Fulbright :Rc Javvorski, LLP 1301 ivleliirmey St, Ste 5100 Houston, TX T7010 Hon. Stephen K. Carroll Fulbright rf.: Javvorski 1301 St, Ste S100 Houston, TX 77010 1,31 Court of/appeals sm South App sffata District 'Stare' of Texas 13|-Stare Iosrlos 1 00 STATE Liss .ever-:os #ao Tsxasxana 75501 903 "Iss 3045 Thursday, Marsh 03, 2012 Hon. Kewyn E. Altaffer Dernontl Hassan, PLLC 2300 Post Oak Blvd, Ste 4100 Houston, TX 17056 Hon. Meagan E. Hasan Deniontl 35. Hassan, PLLC 2300 Post Oak Blvd, Ste 4100 Houston, TX 77056 1-Ion. Alnjf' Marlyse Burgert Zabel Freeman 420 Heights Houston, TK 77007 Hen. James A. Freeman Zabel Freeman 42.0 Heights Houston, TX 711007 I-Ion. Joy Seloway Fulbright ?5 .1 aworski, LLP 1301 McKinney St, Ste S100 I-Ieusreri, TX T7010-3095 I-Ion. Thomas A. Zabel Zabel Freeman 420 Heights Bivrl Houston, TX RE: Appellate Case Nuinher: 06-12-00.023-CV Trial Court Case Number: S0310 S. 2012 3:'fh9P'W1 SIXTH COURT UF Style: The Crewfmd Family Farm Partnership v- TrensCe_nade. Keystone Pipeline, L. P. PEH5 HD. 649 P. is this Cemfs Order rendered this date in the referenced proceeding. ee: Ms. Marvin Ann Pettereen Respectfully' submitted, Debra K. Antrey, Clerk BF Deputy 1-.Hr WELIIL A eu H. nf-| U21 or 531: I. fr- +5 'Tv lj#-4 _'gf-iv' fe lt' ff?" . $2232 The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Terra rkan-a Ne. U6-12-00025-CV CRAWFORD FAMILY FARM PARTNERSHIP, Appellant V. PIPELINE, Appellee Un Appeal from the County Court at Lew Le.mar Colmty, Te:-:ae Tmisl -Court No. 808-10 Before Iviorriss, Carter and Moseley, JJ Mai 3.21312 SIXTH 0F 10. 649 ll R. Crawford Family Farm Partnership (Crawford) tiled a document with this Court late last Friday afternoon, nominally seeking niandamus relief; but alternatively asking this Court to treat the document as its attempt to perfect an interlocutory appeal and as its appellate brief, should we conclude that rnandarnus is unavailable. By separate opinion, vre have this dag; denied the petition for writ of mandarnus, because the order denying a permanent injunction is, by statute, appealable. See TEX. Civ. dr R.Etvt_ CODE Ame. 51.014 (West Supp. 2011). The Cram-vford :tiling is sufficient to show that Crawford alteniariveljr desires to pursue an interlocutory appeal. We, thus, conclude that the document filed evidences a bona tide attempt to invoice this Court's jurisdiction through appea_i.I v. Perez, 340 444, 452-53 (Tea. 2011). We, therefore, tile it this day under this newly assigned cause number as a notice of appeal from the order denying a temporary injunction.; This is an accelerated, interlocutorgr appeal. Therefore, the record is due ten days from toda}f's date. See TEX. R. APP. P. 1We reoogiize that a mandarnus action has been held as not sl-lowing an intent ro appeal. See v, Tex., 335 102, 103 (Tex. 1994) (allowing appeal despite absence of cost bond--notice could be amended by coat bond); R-:avmoad Oversees Lral v. Curry, 955 4'i'0, 472 (Tea. App.-Fort Worth 1991 no pet.) (focusing, however, on absence of cost bond., wliieb is no longer jurisdictional prerequisite to pursuing an appeal)- However, as this petition explicitly seel-ts both types of relief alternatively, it is suicient. !The document Eled will not be treated as the appellenfs brief in this case. It was written as a petition seeking mandamus, and is based on the partial record provided by the appellantfrelator as an appendix. We anticipate that the appellant Will provide this Court with a brief appropriate for an appeal, and based on an official record to be tiled herein. 2 . 3.2012 s='sPs SIXTH ts.rt cr rr 5i_s rs_a4g 12 Because it is apparent that the underlying trial on eminent domain is scheduled at the end of April, we shorten the timetable for filing briefs to require appellant to tile its brief within ten days after the date the record is tiled. Appellee's brief will be due ten days after appe11ant's brief is filed. Because of the nature of this proceeding, no requests for erttensiorr will be considered, either for the record or for briefs. Crawford also requests that we issue temporary orders equivalent to the injunction sought below for the stated purpose of preserving the parties' rihts until disposition of this appeal. We do have the authority to issue such an order (which could be accompanied by a bond). See R. APP. P. 29.3. On a more considered review of the request for what is effectively an injunction preventing action on the condemned property by the appellee pending our decision on this interlocutory appeal, we have not been shown that such relief is necessary- Accordingly, the request for issuance of a temporary order enjoining activity by the appellee is denied. Crawford has also asked this Court to stay the underlying trial pending our decision on this appeal. To gent that relief would merely delay Enal disposition of the proceeding. There is no justification for doing so in this situation. The request for a stay ofthe underlying trial is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. BY COURT Date: March 8, 2012 - FQLE5 IN The Cori* or angeles sara-r Distrm 3 rusosrmr Tesarrsavm, Tease Debra Atztrey. Clerk