law-sanctions-on-appeal | sanctions in the trial courts | sanctions cases | Rule 13 | Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 | death penalty
sanctions | CPRC Chapter 10 Sanctions | frivolous pleadings sanctions lack of good faith  discovery abuse | frivolous
appeal sanctions | sanctions in health care liability (med-mal) suits | Anders Brief |


McKenney asserts that Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus is groundless and he should be
reimbursed for attorney’s fees incurred to defend the trial court’s orders. He relies on Rule 52.11 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, the contention is not briefed.
This Court must exercise the discretion afforded by Rule 52.11 with caution and only after careful
deliberation. In re Lerma, 144 S.W.3d 21, 26 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2004, orig. proceeding). The denial
of mandamus relief does not automatically establish that a petition was so clearly groundless as to
warrant sanctions. Id. In Twist v. McAllen Nat. Bank, 248 S.W.3d 351, 364-68 (Tex.App.–Corpus
Christi 2007, mandamus denied and appeal dism’d), the court held a show cause hearing and
determined that sanctions were appropriate under Rule 52.11 in a case with a “long and arduous
history.” Counsel misstated the law to the court in Twist’s petition. When confronted by the court,
counsel backtracked and amended his petition to delete the misstatements. Id. at 366. The court also
noted that Twist’s petition failed to address or acknowledge controlling authority on a point directly
contrary to Twist’s argument. Id. at 367. Sanctions were also imposed due to the identical arguments
having been raised in a previous mandamus which the court had denied. The court found that Twist’s
counsel knowingly and in bad faith filed a second petition for writ of mandamus. Id.
In Re J.W. Resources Exploration and Development (Tex.App.- Amarillo, Aug. 25, 2009)(Pritle)
(mandamus against order compelling arbitration denied)(
jury waiver, fraudulent inducement argument
against enforcement of arbitration clause fails)
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Opinion by Justice Pirtle  
Before Chief Justice Quinn, Justices Hancock and Pirtle
07-09-00189-CV In Re J.W. Resources Exploration and Development, Inc., Joe Watkins, and Jim
Blankenship, Relators
The circumstances presented in the mandamus proceeding before us do not rise to the level
requiring imposition of sanctions. We decline to award McKenney fees under Rule 52.11.  

BOBBIE WASHINGTON v. ANNIE MARIE GARRETT SMITH, ET AL.; from Harrison County; 6th district
06‑08‑00121‑CV, 289 SW3d 362, 06‑30‑09, pet denied Oct 2009)
probate litigation, removal of administratrix, dependent, independent administration of estate,
attorneys fees,
appellate sanctions denied)

14th district (
14-07-00238-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-15-08, pet. denied July 2009)
insurance coverage, auto damage, appellate sanctions denied)