WPC ̬ mU 9w^ IwKBbyڼCc0l[?s9Gi{+/+~m5G醋 ](JH{VkzbyeS%<?ef JgS1%!/~P!D]r->O|`bPX86'itMӪIƻؕL 8V+W;L#A0€.oAᐸOG@7l2-٢ F[X2' B}4X0splec'XTY㿿3wPFP{}QSR|n rR󬾻~2Oh5;=e 19E "MF )+ڮ e)":#P)hIGw y@} 6ECp95ZĽ]XHOBeE!hh.#UNE % 0:UN 1u! 72^ w4 m 1b 0'c 1   1 0w* * * * * 0 0+ 0 0 0F 0! 0D 1THP LaserJet 5,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i),+ W*+PDEST3|xU(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.- -   (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList3a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  %&')*+xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List !USUS.,  _X+XXX8+XXdd8  Oa@  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTEXAS   @44$ H @%No.010728 8 @44$  (   RickPerry,inhisofficialcapacityasGovernorofthe   StateofTexas,andHenry_Cuellar_,inhisofficialcapacity  ( asSecretaryofStateoftheStateofTexas,Petitioners  H    @)v. X    AliciaDelRio,PhyllisDunham,andJeremyWright, 8  Respondents X   @$$ h @EEOnPetitionforReviewfromthe X @U U CourtofAppealsfortheThirdDistrictofTexas H @$$ 8 @  !consolidatedwith!   @44$  @%No.010810  @44$    RickPerry,inhisofficialcapacityasGovernorofthe h StateofTexas,andHenry_Cuellar_,inhisofficialcapacity   asSecretaryofStateoftheStateofTexas,Petitioners !   @)v. #   Martha_Cotera_,Respondent % !   @$$ '"# @EEOnPetitionforReviewfromthe (#$ @U U CourtofAppealsfortheThirdDistrictofTexas )$% @$$ x*%& @  !consolidatedwith!  H-() Ї@44$  @%No.010827  @44$    InreKenBentsen,etal.,Relators p   @$$   @ OnPetitionforWritofMandamustothe p  @/ / 281stDistrictCourtinHarrisCounty `  @$$ P   @NN ArguedSeptember10,2001  0    Justicebaker,dissenting. P    TheseredistrictingcasespresentimportantquestionsforourState.Buttheimportanceof   thequestionsdoesnotpermittheCourttofirstignore,andthenrefashion,twolongstandingareas  ofTexasjurisprudence. Underourformofgovernment,thelegitimacyofthejudiciaryrestsin  largepartuponastableandpredictable_decisionmaking_Ԁprocessthatdiffersdramaticallyfromthat p properlyemployedbythepoliticalbranchesofgovernment.Weinerv._Wasson_,900S.W.2d316, P 320(Tex.1995).Regrettably,theCourtonceagainfailstoadheretothestare_decisis_Ԁdoctrinethat 0 isthecornerstoneofourjudicialsystem"simplybecausetheresultitdesirescannotbeachieved  ` byfollowingestablishedprecedent.Idissent. !@    I.THEDELRIOCASE  %!#   DelRioisaninterlocutoryappealfromthetrialcourtsorderdenyingtheStatedefendants '"% pleatothejurisdiction,whichallegedthattheDelRioplaintiffsclaimswerenotripeforreview. p)$' Thecourtofappealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsorder,andtherewasnodissent.__S.W.3d__(Tex. P+&) App."Austin2001).Accordingly,thisCourthasjurisdictiontoreviewtheappealonlyifit  determinesthatthecourtofappealshelddifferentlyfromanothercourtofappeals,orthisCourts,  priordecisiononaquestionoflawmaterialtothedecisionofthecase.SeeTex._Govt_ԀCode p 22.001(a)(2),22.225(c);CoastalCorp.v._Garza_,979S.W.2d318,319(Tex.1998). P    Here,theCourthasconflictsjurisdictiontoreviewthecourtofappealsdecision.By 0  grantingBentsenmandamusandavoidingaconflictsjurisdictionanalysis,theCourtturnsTexas `  ripenessdoctrinejurisprudenceonitshead. @    A.ApplicableLaw         @ 1.TexasRipenessDoctrine   a  Ripenessisathresholdissuethatimplicatessubjectmatterjurisdiction.Pattersonv.Planned p Parenthood,971S.W.2d439,442(Tex.1998).Theripenessdoctrineexamineswhenclaimsmay P bebroughtandasks, whether,atthetimealawsuitisfiled,thefactsaresufficientlydevelopedso 0 thataninjuryhasoccurredorislikelytooccur,ratherthanbeingcontingentorremote.Waco ` _Indep_.Sch.Dist.v.Gibson,22S.W.3d849,85152(Tex.2000);seealsoPatterson,971S.W.2d @ at442.     Theripenessdoctrineallowscourtstoavoidprematureadjudicationandservesconstitutional "  interestsinprohibitingadvisoryopinions.Gibson,22S.W.3dat852.Iftheplaintiffsinjuryisnot $" concreteanddependsoncontingentorhypotheticalfacts,thetrialcourtdoesnothavejurisdiction p&!$ tohearthedispute.Gibson,22S.W.3dat852.Todetermineiftheplaintiffsclaimswereripeor P(#& ifthetrialcourtshouldhavedismissedthesuitforwantofjurisdiction,theappellatecourtmustlook 0*%( tothefactsandevidenceexistingwhenthesuitwasfiled.Gibson,22S.W.3dat85152.Ifa ,`'* plaintiffamendsherpetitionwhilethecaseispendingtodemonstratetheclaimsripeness,thefacts  andevidenceassertedintheamendedpetitionmusthaveexistedwhentheplaintiffsued.See  Gibson,22S.W.3dat853. p    2.AppellateReview  0      Ourappellaterulesprovidethatwhileanappealfromaninterlocutoryorderispending,atrial `  court mustnotmakeanorderthat...interfereswithorimpairsthejurisdictionoftheappellate @  courtoreffectivenessofanyreliefsoughtorthatmaybegrantedonappeal.Tex.R.App.P.29.5(b)   (emphasisadded).Thisruleisdesignedtopreventan endrunaroundaninterlocutoryappeal.See  Inre_M.M.O._,981S.W.2d72,79(Tex.App."SanAntonio1998,nopet.);St.Louis_S.W._ԀRy.Co.  v.VoluntaryPurchasingGroups,Inc.,929S.W.2d25,33(Tex.App."Texarkana1996,nowrit); p Cobbv.Thurmond,899S.W.2d18,19(Tex.App."SanAntonio1995,writdenied). P   Additionally,itiswellsettledinTexasthatanappellatecourtsreviewisconfinedtothe 0 recordinthetrialcourtwhenthetrialcourtacted.See,e.g.,Owens-Corning_Fiberglas_ԀCorp.v. ` Malone,972S.W.2d35,52n.7(Tex.1998);UniversityofTex.v.Morris,344S.W.2d426,429(Tex. @ 1961);Monsantov.Davis,25S.W.3d773,781(Tex.App."Waco2000,pet._dismd_Ԁ_w.o.j._).    (83! !   B.Analysis  $" (  AfterdiscussingtheripenessdoctrineprinciplesthisCourtannouncedinGibsonand p&!$ Patterson,thecourtofappealsconcludedthatreviewingthetrialcourtsorderdenyingthe P(#& jurisdictionalpleawas madeeasierbythefactthattheDelRiocasehasbeenconsolidatedand 0*%( mergedwiththe_Cotera_casewhichwhenfiledonMay31wasripeonitsface.__S.W.3dat__. ,`'* Thecourtofappealsfurtherstatedthatitdidnothavetoexaminethetrialcourtsdecisionindetail  becauseDelRiowasconsolidatedwith_Cotera_,asuitthatthecourtofappealsdeterminedasserted  claimsthatwere clearlyripe.__S.W.3dat__.Butthecourtofappealsrelianceonfactsthat p occurredafterDelRiowasfiled,andwerenotbeforethetrialcourtwhenitdeniedtheplea,conflicts P  withGibson. 0    InGibson,thecourtofappealsconcludedthatitcouldnotdecidetheschooldistricts `  ripenesschallengebecauseitwasraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Gibson,22S.W.3dat850. @  Afterrecognizingthatsubjectmatterjurisdictioncannotbewaivedandmayberaisedforthefirst   timeonappeal,weanalyzedtheripenessissue.Wespecificallyreiteratedthatindeterminingifa  caseisripe,weconsider whether,atthetimealawsuitisfiled,thefactsaresufficientlydeveloped.  Gibson,22S.W.3dat85152(emphasisinoriginal).Additionally,wenotedthattheCourtmay p reviewtheentirerecordtoascertainifanyevidencesupportsthetrialcourtssubjectmatter P jurisdiction.Gibson,22S.W.3dat853.Butwefurtherdeterminedthatourdecisionstillturnson 0 thefactsandevidenceexisting whentheplaintiffssued.Gibson,22S.W.3dat853(emphasisin ` original).Forexample,theCourtconsideredtheplaintiffsargumentthatan impactscoming @ inresponsetotheschooldistrictsassertionthatitspolicyhadnotimpactedanystudents whenthe   [plaintiffs]filedsuit.Gibson,22S.W.3dat85253(emphasisadded).Afterreviewingthe "  evidenceandtestimonybeforethetrialcourt,weheldthatthetrialcourtdidnothavejurisdiction $" becausetheplaintiffsclaimswerenotripe.Gibson,22S.W.3dat853. p&!$   Notably,theGibsondissentarguedthattheCourtshouldhavegiventheplaintiffsan P(#& opportunitytoamendtheirpleadingsratherthanrelyingsolelyontheoriginalpetition.Gibson,22 0*%( S.W.3dat856(_Hecht_,J.dissenting).ThedissentalsourgedthattheCourtshouldhaveconsidered ,`'* whethertheplaintiffscouldhaveadducedevidencetodemonstratetheirclaimsripenesswhentheir  casewasdevelopedfurtherinthetrialcourt.Gibson,22S.W.3dat856.Butthemajorityrejected  thedissentspositionwhenitemphaticallyheldthatthefactsexisting whentheplaintiffssued p mustshowtheclaimsareripe.Gibson,22S.W.3dat853(emphasisinoriginal). P    Here,thecourtofappealsanalysisandthelegalprinciplesitappliedtoconcludethattheDel 0  RioplaintiffsclaimswereripewouldoperatetooverruleGibsonhadweissuedthesamedecision. `  SeeCoastalCorp.,979S.W.2dat321.HadthecourtofappealsproperlyappliedGibson,itwould @  haveconfinedreviewingthetrialcourtsordertothefactsandevidenceexistingwhentheDelRio   plaintiffsfiledsuit.SeeGibson,22S.W.3dat851.And,ifithaddoneso,thecourtofappealscould  havereachedonlyoneconclusion"thattheDelRioplaintiffsclaimswerenotripe.    TheDelRioplaintiffssuedonDecember27,2000,beforethecensusdatawasreleasedand p beforetheLegislatureadjournedsinedie.Acaseinvolvingcongressionalredistrictingcouldnot P havebeenripeatleastuntiltheseeventsoccurred.__S.W.3dat__.Thus,onDecember27,2000, 0 theallegedharmwasnotdirectandimmediate;itwasmerelyconjectural,hypothetical,andremote. ` SeeGibson,22S.W.3dat852. @   InadditiontoitsobviousconflictwithGibson,thecourtofappealsconclusionthatDelRio   isripeisbasedonitsimproperlyconsideringtheorderconsolidatingDelRioand_Cotera_.Here,the "  trialcourtsconsolidationorderclearlyinterferedwithandimpairedtheeffectivenessoftherelief $" theDelRioStatedefendantssought.SeeTex.R.App.P.29.5(b);Inre_M.M.O._,981S.W.2dat79; p&!$ St.Louis_S.W._ԀRy.Co.,929S.W.2dat33;Cobb,899S.W.2dat19.Butfortheconsolidationorder, P(#& thecourtofappealswouldhavehadtoapplyTexasripenessdoctrinetoconcludethatDelRiowas 0*%( notripe. ,`'*   Finally,thecourtofappealsopiniondisregardsTexasrulethatanappellatecourtsreview  isconfinedtotherecordbeforethetrialcourtwhenthetrialcourtacted.See,e.g.,Owens-Corning  _Fiberglas_ԀCorp.,972S.W.2dat52n.7;Morris,344S.W.2dat429;Monsanto,25S.W.3dat781. p Here,thecourtofappealsconcludedthatDelRiowasripe,relyingonDelRiosand_Cotera_s P  consolidation.ThiseventnotonlyoccurredafterDelRiofiledherpetition,butitalsooccurredafter 0  thetrialcourtdeniedthepleatothejurisdictionandaftertheStatedefendantsperfectedtheir `  interlocutoryappeal.Thus,thecourtofappealserroneouslylookedoutsidetherecordthatwas @  beforethetrialcourtwhenitdeniedthepleatothejurisdiction.      C.Conclusion   sD  ThecourtofappealsdecisionconflictswithTexasripenessdoctrinejurisprudenceand,in p particular,theanalysisandlegalprinciplesweappliedinGibson.UnderGibson,thecourtof P appealsshouldhavereversedthetrialcourtsorderdenyingthejurisdictionalpleaanddismissedthe 0 suitforwantofjurisdiction. `    II.THE_COTERA_ԀCASE        Afterthe_Cotera_plaintiffssuedonMay31,2001,theStatedefendantsfiledtheirpleatothe "  jurisdiction,contendingthattheclaimswerenotripebecausetheGovernorcouldstillcallaspecial $" session.AfterthetrialcourtconsolidatedDelRioand_Cotera_,itdeniedthispleatothejurisdiction p&!$ onAugust2,2001.TheStatedefendantsappealedthisorder.Then,oncethecourtofappealsissued P(#& itsDelRiodecision,the_Cotera_plaintiffsfileda motiontoexpediteandmotionforsummary 0*%( _affirmance_inthecourtofappeals.The_Cotera_plaintiffsarguedthatthecourtsDelRiodecision ,`'* specificallyanswered_Cotera_sjurisdictionalissue.OnAugust31,2001,thecourtofappeals,  withoutexplanation,dismissedthe_Cotera_appealforwantofjurisdiction.    ThisCourthasjurisdictiontodeterminewhetheracourtofappealscorrectlydecidedits p jurisdictionoveraninterlocutoryappeal._Qwest_ԀCommunicationsCorp.v.AT&TCorp.,24S.W.3d P  334,33536(Tex.2000).Here,the_Cotera_Statedefendantsappealedthetrialcourtsinterlocutory 0  orderdenyingtheirpleastothejurisdiction.Thecourtofappealshadjurisdictiontoconsiderthese `  appealsunderTexasCivilPractice&RemediesCodesection51.014(a)(8).Becausethecourtof @  appealshadjurisdiction,itshouldhavedecided_Cotera_onthemerits.    (Eh88! !   III.THEBENTSENMANDAMUS       TheCourtsdecisiontograntmandamushereisaradicaldeparturefromourdominant p jurisdictionandmandamusjurisprudence.Mandamusshouldnotissuebecausethiscaseisnot P uniqueorsignificantlydifferentthanthoseexpressingourwellestablishedlegalprinciplesinthese 0 areas. `    A.ApplicableLaw        Mandamusisanextraordinaryremedy,availableonlywhenatrialcourtclearlyabusesits "  discretionandwhenthereisnoadequateremedyonappeal.SeeWalkerv.Packer,827S.W.2d833, $" 840-44(Tex.1992).Reviewingcourtsmustnotissuemandamustocontrolorcorrectatrialcourts p&!$ incidentalrulingwhentheharm,ifany,canberemediedonappeal.See,e.g.,CanadianHelicopters P(#& Ltd.v._Wittig_,876S.W.2d304,306(Tex.1994);Walker,827S.W.2dat840. 0*%(   ThegeneralcommonlawruleinTexasisthatthecourtinwhichsuitisfirstfiledacquires ,`'* Oa     dominantjurisdictiontotheexclusionofothercoordinatecourts.Curtisv.Gibbs,511S.W.2d263,  267(Tex.1974).Forsixteenyears,thisCourthasrecognizedthatappealisanadequatemeansfor  reviewingdominantjurisdictionquestions.Aborv.Black,695S.W.2d564,566(Tex.1985).In p Abor,theCourtdistinguishedCurtis,adominantjurisdictioncaseinwhichthisCourtgranted P  mandamusrelief,bypointingoutthatinCurtistherewasaninjunctionfromonecourtprecluding 0  theothercourtfromproceeding.Abor,695S.W.2dat567.Weheldthatbecausenoinjunctionhad `  beengrantedinAborandnoorderactivelyinterferedwiththeothercourtsjurisdiction,mandamus @  reliefshouldbedenied.Abor,695S.W.2dat567.     Accordingly,theAborruleapplies,andmandamusisunavailabletoreviewadenialofaplea  inabatementbasedonthependencyofafirstfiledaction, unlessthecourtsweredirectlyinterfering  witheachotherbyissuingconflictingordersorinjunctions.Hallv._Lawliss_,907S.W.2d493,494 p (Tex.1995)(relyingonAbor,695S.W.2dat567).Theinterferencemaynotbeincidental,butmust P risetothelevelthatitinterfereswiththeothercourtsexerciseofitsjurisdiction.Abor,695S.W.2d 0 at567. `   TexascourtsofappealshavesteadfastlyappliedtheAborrule,recognizingthatacourt @ cannotgrantmandamusreliefwhenbothcourtscanproceedwiththeirseparateactionsandonecourt   hasnotattemptedtodivesttheotherofjurisdiction.See,e.g.,InreRamsey,28S.W.3d58,63(Tex. "  App."Texarkana2000,orig.proceeding);InreRioGrandeValleyGasCo.,987S.W.2d167, $" 172-73(Tex.App."CorpusChristi1999,orig.proceeding);TexasCommerceBank,N.A.v._Prohl_, p&!$ 824S.W.2d228,230(Tex.App."SanAntonio1992,orig.proceeding).Asaresult,courtshave P(#& grantedmandamusreliefonlywhen thereisaconflictinjurisdictionbetweencourtsofcoordinate 0*%( jurisdictionandtheproceedingsinthetrialcourtfirsttakingjurisdictionhavebeenimproperly ,`'* enjoinedbythesecondcourt,orthefirstcourthasrefusedtoproceedtotrial.DallasFireIns.Co.  v.Davis,893S.W.2d288,294(Tex.App."FortWorth1995,orig.proceeding);seealsoAllstate  Ins.Co.v.Garcia,822S.W.2d348,349(Tex.App."SanAntonio1992,orig.proceeding);_Trapnell_ p v.Hunter,785S.W.2d426,429(Tex.App."CorpusChristi1990,orig.proceeding). P     B.Analysis  `      TheCourtconcludesthattheTravisCountycourthasdominantjurisdictionbecausethe @  _Cotera_plaintiffsclaimswereripewhen_Cotera_ԀfiledsuitandbecausetheDelRioplaintiffsamended   theirpetitiononthesameday_Cotera_filedsuit.However,evenassumingthisiscorrectandthe  HarrisCountytrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingthepleainabatement,Bentsenhasan  adequateappellateremedy.SeeHall,907S.W.2dat494;Abor,695S.W.2dat567. p   IndeterminingthatBentsensappellateremedyisinadequate,theCourtconcludesthatunder P thecircumstances, furtherconfusionordelayinthetrialofapendingchallengetocongressional 0 _districting_Ԁposestheveryrealthreatthatthepartieswillnotbeabletoobtainadecisioninthestate ` courtsthatisfinalonappealbeforetheOctober1deadlinesetbythefederalcourts.__S.W.3dat @ __.Butthisanalysisisinconsistentwithourjurisprudence.SeeAbor,695S.W.2dat567.Ifthe   HarrisCountycaseandTravisCountycaseproceedtotrialatthesametime,neithercourts "  jurisdictionisaffected.Thecases,whichinvolvesomebutnotallthesameparties,witnesses,and $" attorneys,cangoforwardatthesametimeandproceedtofinaljudgment.Then,thedominant p&!$ jurisdictionandabatementissues"theveryissuestheCourtimproperlydecidesbymandamus P(#& today"canbeproperlydetermineduponappeal. 0*%(   Indeed,theverysamesituationconfrontedthisCourtinHallv._Lawliss_.InHall,thesame ,`'* partiesinadisputearisingfromthesamefactssuedeachotherindifferentcounties.907S.W.2d  at494.Thecourtinwhichthesecondsuitwasfiledrefusedtoabateordismissitsproceedingseven  thoughtheothercasewaspending.Werecognizedthatthefirstfiledsuitacquireddominant p jurisdiction,but,adheringtoAbor,wedeniedmandamusreliefbecausethetwocourtshadnot P  directlyinterferedwitheachother byissuingconflictingordersorinjunctions.Hall,907S.W.2d 0  at494.Ifwewouldnotgrantmandamusreliefthen,whenthecasesbeforeitinvolvedtheexact `  samepartiesandissues,howcantheCourtdosonow?Simplybecausetherearetwoorders @  indicatingthatthetrialswillproceedatthesametime,doesnotmakethiscaseanydifferentthan   Hall.InHall,thisCourtknewthatindenyingmandamusrelief,bothcaseswouldproceedtotrial.  Butitcorrectlychosetoadheretoour_caselaw_.SeeHall,907S.W.2dat907.TheCourtshould  reachthesameconclusionhere. p   Additionally,Bentsenofferednoevidenceatthehearingonthepleainabatementto P demonstratethattheHarrisCountycourthaddirectlyinterferedwiththeTravisCountycourts 0 jurisdiction.SeeTex.R.App.P.52.7;Walker,827S.W.2dat833.Indeed,bothcounselforBentsen ` andrealpartiesininterestagreedatoralargumentthatthetwotrialscouldproceedatthesametime. @ Moreover,thepartiesnotedthattheTravisCountycourthadstatedthattheHarrisCountycourtwas   notinterferingwiththeTravisCountycourtsjurisdiction.Thereisabsolutelynothinginthesecases "  thatprecludeourapplyingAboranddenyingmandamusrelief. $"   Finally,mandamusshouldnotissueinthiscase,becauseBentsendidnotfirstseekreliefin p&!$ thecourtofappealsasTexasRuleofAppellateProcedure52.3(e)requires.And,thiscasedoesnot P(#& present compellingcircumstancesfortheCourttoallowBentsentobypassthecourtofappeals 0*%( review.Indeed,thisCourtdenied_Weddington_smandamus,whicharosefromtheDelRiotrial ,`'* courtsdenyingherpleatothejurisdiction,becauseshedidnotfirstseekrelieffromthecourtof  appeals.See__S.W.3dat__n.90.Notsurprisingly,Bentsenopposed_Weddington_smandamus  petitioninthatcaseandarguedthatnocompellingcircumstancesexistedtoallowhertobypassthe p courtofappealsandthattheAustincourtofappealswasinanyeventbetterpreparedtoconsiderher P  mandamusbecausetheStatedefendantsinterlocutoryappealswerependingthere. 0    Here,theHarrisCountytrialcourtdeniedBentsenspleainabatementonAugust31,2001, `  givinghimampletimetofirstseekmandamusreliefinthecourtofappeals.Also,aninterlocutory @  appealfromtheHarrisCountytrialcourtsorderdenyingSpeaker_Laney_spleatothejurisdiction,   raisingthesameissuesasBentsenurgeshere,ispendingintheHoustoncourtofappeals.This  Courtsintegrityturnsuponitsconsistentapplicationofourproceduralrules,andtherefore,Bentsen  shouldberequiredtofirstseekmandamusrelieffromthecourtofappeals. p  (Uh88! !   C.Conclusion  0 (z  Aboranditsprogenyrecognizethatthesamepartiesandthesameissuescanproceedtotrial ` indifferenttrialcourts.Bentsenhasanadequateappellateremedy,andtherefore,thisCourtmust @ denymandamusrelief.      IV.THECOURTSOPINION  $"     Today,theCourtgrantsmandamusreliefasanendrunaroundtheconflictsjurisdictionissue p&!$ inDelRioandtoavoiddecidingthatthecourtofappealserredindismissing_Cotera_forlackof P(#& jurisdiction.TheinconsistenciesintheCourtsopinionsupportmyconclusion: 0*%( ! ! - %&')*+,(y8"3"  3~23  0    TheCourtacknowledgesthatstatelawshoulddeterminejurisdictionalissues,butthen ,`'* appliesfederallawcontrarytoTexasripenessdoctrinetoconcludethatDelRioisripe.3~O~݌(#(# Ќ  "3"  323  0    AfterdiscussingthemoreliberalfederalripenessstandardsthatTexaslawsupposedly  reflects,theCourtboldlystates,withnoTexasauthoritycitedwhatsoever,that theripeness  doctrineisnolessfunctionalunderTexaslaw.__S.W.3dat__.3݌p(#(# Ќ  "3"  323  0    TheCourtswritingcompletelyignoresthereasoningthecourtofappealsappliedinDelRio P  toconcludethecasewasripe.Instead,theCourtappliesfederalripenessanalysistoavoid @  discussingthecourtofappealsfaultyreasoning.3݌0 (#(# Ќ  "3"  3]23  0    TheCourtsummarilydismisses_Cotera_asmootwithoutacknowledgingthattheCourts `  jurisdictionislimitedtodeterminingwhetherthecourtofappealshadjurisdictiontohearthe P  appeal"whichitdid.3]݌@ (#(# Ќ  "3"  3123  0    RelyingonLeachv.Brown,292S.W.2d329,311(Tex.1956),theCourtstatesthatan   amendedpleadingshouldbetreatedasanewsuitforpurposesofdeterminingdominant  jurisdiction.ButinLeach,thetrialcourtdismissedtheoriginalpetitionandtheparties  unsuccessfullyappealedthatfinalorder.Theamendedpetitionwasfiledinthesametrial  courtaftertheappealwasfinal,andthus,thepetitionwastreatedasanewsuit.31^݌(#(# Ќ  "3"  323  0    TocircumventAbor,theCourtcasuallyremarksthat [_i]t_Ԁisunimportanttotheissueof p dominantjurisdictionwhichcourtfirstsetanearliertrialdate.ThereisnoTexasauthority ` forthisstatement,anditappearstoexistonlyasafigmentoftheCourtsmind.Indeed,this P statementfliesinthefaceofourjurisprudenceholdingthatcourtsgrantmandamusreliefin @ dominantjurisdictioncasesonlywhentheoffendingcourtsorderdirectlyinterfereswith 0 theothercourtsjurisdiction.Here,theHarrisCountycourtdidnotenteranorderthat  p interferedwithanyactionoftheTravisCountytrialcourt,muchlessitsjurisdiction.3(݌`(#(# Ќ  "3"  323  0    Bentsenofferednoevidenceatthehearingonthepleainabatementtodemonstratethatthe @ HarrisCountycourthaddirectlyinterferedwiththeTravisCountycourtsjurisdiction.3݌0(#(# Ќ  "3"  3t23  0    Allthepartiesagreedatoralargumentthatthetwotrialscouldproceedatthesametime.3t݌!(#(# Ќ  "3"  323  0    TheTravisCountycourthasstatedthattheHarrisCountycourtwasnotinterferingwiththe #! TravisCountycourtsjurisdiction.3݌$"(#(# Ќ  "3 "  3ۏ23  0    ݀TheCourtgrantsmandamusreliefofthetrialcourtsorderdenyingthepleainabatement, p&!$ whichthisCourtandcourtsofappealshaveconcludedfordecadesisanincidentaltrialcourt `'"% rulingnotsubjecttomandamusreview.3ۏ݌P(#&(#(# Ќ  "3 "  323  0    Ingrantingmandamus,theCourtarguesthatthiscasepresentsexceptionalcircumstances 0*%( basedonitsmerespeculationthatthestatecourtscannotreachafinaldecisionbythe  +p&) October1deadline.3̑݌,`'*(#(# Ќ  "3 "  3B23  0    ToachievetheresulttheCourtwantstoreach,ithastooverruleGibsonandAbor,andits  refusaltoacknowledgethatithasdonesoisdisingenuous.3Bo݌(#(# Ќ    TheCourtswritingisnothingmorethancleverlycraftedlinguisticlegerdemaindesigned  toobscurethefactthattheCourtappliesfederallawcontrarytoclearTexasprecedentinthefirst `  instanceandgrantsmandamuscontrarytoequallyclearTexasprecedentinthesecond. @     V.CONCLUSION  P      Forthereasonsdiscussedabove,IcannotagreewiththeCourtsdispositionofthese 0  redistrictingpetitions.TheCourthasconflictsjurisdictiontodeterminethatthecourtofappeals  erredinaffirmingthetrialcourtsorderdenyingthejurisdictionalpleainDelRio.TheCourtshould  reverseDelRioandthetrialcourtshoulddismissthatcaseforwantofjurisdiction.Next,because  thecourtofappealserredindismissing_Cotera_forwantofjurisdiction,weshouldremandthatcase ` tothecourtofappealssothatthecourtcandecidetheappealonitsmerits.Finally,weshoulddeny @ Bentsensmandamuspetition.BecausetheCourtconcludesotherwise,Idissent.#XhXXX+=#  p    `     h      p _________________________________ !    `     h      p JamesA.Baker "     `     h      p Justice #!  Opiniondelivered:September12,2001