In Re Union Pacific Resources Co.
969 S.W.2d 427, 1998 WL 134054 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An erroneous denial of a motion to recuse a judge is a trial court error that should be corrected on appeal from a final judgment; therefore, the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is generally not available because an adequate remedy by appeal exists.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Lee Monroe and Gena Jo Monroe sued Union Pacific Resources Company for personal injury damages.
- The trial judge assigned to the case was the Honorable Max Bennett.
- Union Pacific's defense counsel was Carlos Villareal, a partner in the firm representing the company.
- At the same time as the Monroe litigation, Mr. Villareal was also representing Judge Bennett in his official capacity in a separate, unrelated lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- The Monroes sued Union Pacific in a Texas trial court.
- The Monroes filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, Judge Max Bennett, which he denied.
- The motion was referred to Judge Robert Blackmon, who initially granted the recusal.
- Upon Judge Bennett's request for a rehearing, Judge Blackmon reversed his ruling and denied the recusal motion.
- The Monroes, as relators, petitioned the intermediate court of appeals for a writ of mandamus against Judge Blackmon.
- The court of appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the recusal.
- Union Pacific, as relator, then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus to compel the court of appeals to withdraw its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a writ of mandamus available as a remedy for a party when a trial court erroneously denies a motion to recuse a judge?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Phillips
No. A writ of mandamus is not available because the complaining party has an adequate remedy by appeal. The court distinguishes between constitutional disqualification, which renders a judge's orders void and makes mandamus appropriate, and recusal, which is based on procedural rules and does not void a judge's orders. An erroneous denial of a recusal motion is a voidable error, not a fundamental one, and it can be waived if not properly raised. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provide for appellate review of a recusal denial after a final judgment, which constitutes an adequate remedy, even if it involves more expense or delay than an extraordinary writ.
Concurring - Justice Hecht
No. While appeal is the proper remedy, this rule should not be without exceptions. Mandamus relief might still be appropriate in extraordinary cases, such as when a judge flagrantly disregards procedural rules or when the ruling is almost certain to be reversed on appeal. Additionally, the need for a judge to testify regarding the facts of a recusal motion does not justify them testifying on the broader issue of perceived impartiality; judges should limit their involvement in their own recusal proceedings to avoid the appearance of a trial on their character.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the procedural distinction between judicial disqualification and recusal in Texas jurisprudence. By holding that denial of a recusal motion is a standard trial court error correctable on appeal, the Court significantly limits the availability of interlocutory relief via mandamus for such issues. This promotes judicial efficiency by preventing cases from being stalled by appeals over recusal before a final judgment is reached. The ruling forces litigants to proceed to trial even with a potentially biased judge, reserving the challenge for a post-judgment appeal unless the circumstances are truly extraordinary, as noted in the concurrence.
