Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Orozco v. State of Texas — Appellate court denies petition for writ of mandamus

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
IN RE VICTOR HUGO OROZCO AND BENJAMIN OROZCO, Relators
Court
Texas 2nd Court of Appeals
Judge
Per Curiam (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
July 22, 2026
Docket No.
02-26-00473-CV
Topics
Appellate Procedure; Mandamus; Original Proceedings
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Victor Hugo Orozco and Benjamin Orozco, identified as “Relators,” initiated an original proceeding by filing a petition for writ of mandamus. The underlying matter originated in the Justice of the Peace, Precinct 8 of Tarrant County, Texas, under trial court number JP08-25-E00125818. The Relators sought relief from the appellate court through this extraordinary remedy, requesting the court to compel an action or rectify an alleged abuse of discretion by the lower court.

The Court’s Holding

The Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth, comprised of Justices Bassel, Kerr, and Walker, considered the Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. After reviewing the submission, the court issued a Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion. In this opinion, the appellate court determined that relief should be denied and, accordingly, denied the Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. No detailed reasoning for the denial was provided within the brief memorandum.

Key Takeaways

  • The Texas 2nd Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Victor Hugo Orozco and Benjamin Orozco.
  • The decision was rendered as a Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion, indicating it reflects the collective view of the panel rather than an individual justice’s authorship.
  • The court found the Relators were not entitled to the extraordinary relief requested, though the specific grounds for denial were not elaborated in the published opinion.

Why It Matters

This ruling reinforces the high bar for obtaining mandamus relief in Texas appellate courts. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy typically reserved for situations where there is no other adequate remedy by appeal and the relator can demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested. The denial of the petition, even without detailed explanation, signifies that the Relators failed to meet this stringent burden. For attorneys, this serves as a reminder of the discretionary nature of mandamus and the importance of ensuring all procedural and substantive requirements are meticulously satisfied when pursuing such relief.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top