Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012

in Re Noe De Los Santos, Joe Avalos, Rudy Rivera, and Ruben Vaiz

in Re Noe De Los Santos, Joe Avalos, Rudy Rivera, and Ruben Vaiz
Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided January 17, 2012
in Re Noe De Los Santos, Joe Avalos, Rudy Rivera, and Ruben Vaiz

Opinion

NUMBER 13-12-00001-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE NOE DE LOS SANTOS, JOE AVALOS, RUDY RIVERA, AND

RUBEN VAIZ On Verified Petition for Writ of Injunction and Emergency Motion for

Injunctive Relief Pendente Lite.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1 Relators, Noe De Los Santos, Joe Avalos, Rudy Rivera, and Ruben Vaiz, filed a verified petition for writ of injunction and emergency motion for injunctive relief pendente lite in the above cause on January 3, 2012, requesting that this Court grant a temporary injunction enjoining the City of Robstown from proceeding with a trial that is set in the 250th District Court of Travis County, Texas. The Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of injunction and emergency motion from the opposing party, the City of Robstown.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the verified petition for writ of injunction and emergency motion for injunctive relief pendente lite, and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. See, e.g., TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 1205.025, 1205.061 (West 2000); see also Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 146, 149 (Tex. 1982); Hotze v. City of Houston, 339 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, no pet.); Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. v. Attorney Gen. of Tex., 670 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Accordingly, the petition and emergency motion are DENIED.

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 17th day of January, 2012.

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.