Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Appeal by a different name and in a different form - currently used by Texas AG to Challenge Same-Sex Marriage Rulings by Travis County (Austin, TX) Trial Court Judges

THERE ARE APPEALS, AND THEN THERE ARE APPEALS BY A DIFFERENT NAME   

Appeal vs. Mandamus Petition / Writ of Habeas Corpus 

A mandamus case filed in the court of appeals is actually denominated an "original" proceeding, but it is original only in the court of appeals and it still pertains to a trial judge's act or inaction in a pending case in a trial court. So, given those characteristics, a mandamus proceeding has most of the hallmarks of an appeal of the interlocutory variety. It is more similar to an interlocutory appeal than a regular appeal because it is typically brought while a case is pending in the trial court.

In a mandamus case, the case style is different (In re BCD as opposed to BCD vs XYZ) and the party bringing the complaint is called relator, rather than the appellant. The opposing "party" in the mandamus proceeding is technically the judge whose ruling or other conduct forms the basis for the complaint, while the other party in the underlying suit is called the "real party in interest", and not the appellee, as in a regular or interlocutory appeal. Beyond the difference in terminology, there are also different rules that govern these types of appeals, and what types of papers are used to support it.
The main purpose of a mandamus proceeding is to obtain relief against a judge when no other remedy is available and it would arguably be too late to pursue an appeal from a final judgment, for example when one party claims it should not be forced to turn over documents that contain trade secrets or confidential information, but the trial judge nevertheless orders them to do so.

Under such circumstances, the resisting party may try to get the judge in question "mandamused" by appealing to higher authority, i.e. the court of appeals. The vehicle to do so is a petition for writ of mandamus, which may be accompanied by an emergency request for an immediate stay of the trial court's order.

A application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the court of appeals has much in common with a petition for a writ of mandamus, but is restricted to situations where the trial court's order puts the party in jail ("confinement").

RECENT MANDAMUS FILINGS IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT INVOLVING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 

Current examples of high-profile mandamus proceedings are In re State of Texas, No. 15-0135, and In re State of Texas, No. 15-0139. The case styles are identical because neither the judges, nor the real parties in interest are made part of the case name in mandamus cases under the established case naming convention.

Because both cases were taken to the Supreme Court by the Texas Attorney General in the name of the State, it is necessary to add additional information to distinguish them: No. 15-0135 was filed on February 17, 2015 and involves a ruling by the judge of Probate Court No. 1 in Travis County (Austin) on same-sex marriage in the post-mortem context; while No. 15-0139 was filed two days later and involves a challenge to a temporary order signed by a district court judge that allowed two women to obtain a marriage license.

Both mandamus actions were initiated by the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, in February 2015, and involve challenges to trial court orders that put the constitutionality of same-sex marriage prohibition in Texas in doubt. Some years back, the Texas Legislature passed a state constitutional amendment to declare that marriage shall consist only of "the union between one man and one woman", Acts 2005, 79th Leg. J.J.R. No. 6, §1; and the voters ratified it by referendum in November 2005.

But several trial courts have since ruled that the same-sex prohibition is unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution, which trump state law in case of conflict. Several cases involving same-sex marriage/divorce are already pending in the Texas Supreme Court. They are among the longest-pending cases on the docket.

In the two freshly-filed petitions for writ of mandamus, the Attorney General attacks orders declaring the same-sex marriage prohibition unconstitutional in two different contexts.

In Case No. 15-0135 the AG challenges an order by a Travis County probate court judge refusing to dismiss an application for determination of heirship by a woman claiming to be the surviving spouse of a deceased woman whose family filed a proceeding in probate court to settle the matter of inheritance in the absence of a will. The issue in this case is whether there was an informal marriage (more commonly known as “common law marriage”) under Texas law. The probate court judge based the denial of the motion to dismiss on the finding that the same-sex marriage prohibition was unconstitutional.

In Case 15-0139 the AG seeks to invalidate a temporary restraining order (TRO) granted by a district court judge in Travis County that enjoined the Travis County Clerk, Dana DeBeauvoir, from denying a marriage license to a lesbian couple, one of whom is cancer-stricken. The judge in that case, the Hon. P. David Wahlberg, also waived the otherwise mandatory waiting period, and the couple was married the same day. See Twitter post from Travis County Clerk with Photo.

Attorney General Paxton immediately filed an emergency motion for a stay in the Texas Supreme Court, which the Court granted the same day. In both cases, Paxton argues that there was no other remedy and that the rulings of the Travis County judges create confusion about whether or not same-sex marriage licenses may be issued. The absence of an adequate legal remedy is a one of the prerequisites for mandamus relief.

The mandamus-petitions against the most recent Travis County same-sex marriage rulings, however, are atypical in that the AG went immediately to the Texas Supreme Court, rather than to the Third Court of Appeals that oversees Travis County trial courts. And the AG not only requested immediate relief, but also received it within hours. He went so far as to call the judges' actions "rouge" in a press release.

All this reflects the highly charged nature of the issue, and the deep partisan division between liberals and conservatives on hot-button social issues. Austin, like other urban population centers (Houston, Dallas) is much more liberal and regularly elects Democratic office holders -- Houston even has a lesbian mayor -- while all members of the Texas Supreme Court are Republicans, and all other holders of state-wide offices, including the Governor and the Attorney General, are also Republicans. The current mandamus proceedings involving the same-sex marriage issue must be seen in that political context. The same can be said about the indictment of Rick Perry in Travis County for abuse of office while serving as Governor.

TEXAS SUPREME COURT STAY ORDERS IN 2015 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES FROM TRAVIS COUNTY 

STATEMENT OF TRAVIS COUNTY CLERK - WILL ISSUE LICENSES TO SAME-SEX COUPLES ONLY ON COURT'S ORDER 

EXCERPTS FROM TRIAL COURT ORDERS AT ISSUE IN THE MANDAMUS CASES 

Snip from Judge Guy Herman's Order finding same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional 

Temporary Order by Judge Wahlberg directing County Clerk to
issue marriage license to same-sex couple in light of
illness of one of them 

GENERAL RULE GOVERNING MANDAMUS 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must demonstrate (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and (2) the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding). 

Note on terminology: The party seeking relief by petition for writ of mandamus is called “relator”, while the opposing party in the litigation below is the “real party in interest”. In their opinions and orders, justices on the courts of appeals refer to trial court judges as “it”, sometimes even in mandamus proceedings, which are specifically directed against the judge that rendered the complained-of ruling. This is why a pending mandamus proceeding is affected by the trial judge leaving office. The judge replacing the original judge must be given an opportunity to reconsider the challenged order before the court of appeals proceeds to a decision on whether the original judge committed as error serious enough to warrant correction by the higher court.  

To establish entitlement to relief by mandamus, relators "must meet two requirements." In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). "One is to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion." Id. "The other requirement . .. . is to show that . . . [relators have] no adequate remedy by appeal." Id. at 135-36. The Texas Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he operative word, `adequate,' has no comprehensive definition; it is simply a proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine when appellate courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review the actions of lower courts." Id. at 136. Although the Texas Supreme Court "has tried to give more concrete direction for determining the availability of mandamus review, rigid rules are necessarily inconsistent with the flexibility that is the remedy's principal virtue." Id.  

SOURCE: Corpus Christi / Edinburg Court of Appeals - No. 13-14-00395-CV - 7/11/2014

MANDAMUS STANDARD: LOWER WHEN CHALLENGED ORDER IS VOID 

"The issuance of a void order is an abuse of discretion." Custom Corporates, Inc. v. Sec. Storage, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). Moreover, "[w]hen the order is adjudged void, it is not necessary for a relator to additionally show that it lacks an adequate appellate remedy." Id. Therefore, "[c]ases involving void orders present a circumstance warranting mandamus relief." Id.  

OPINIONS ON GRANT OR DENIAL OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). 

Many denials of mandamus are essential one-line or two-line orders. A footnote may be used to identify the underlying case in the trial court, and the name of the judge whose order is being challenged.

CoA Membership Changes following 2014 Elections and Resignations that Created Vacancies; and the Last Perry Picks

RECENT CHANGES IN THE MEMBERSHIPS OF THE TEXAS COURTS OF APPEALS 

Just prior to leaving office, Governor Rick Perry appointed five new justices to vacancies on several intermediate courts of appeals. A few other membership changes were brought about by the November 2014 elections, effective January 1, 2015. Some of the sitting justices whose terms were ending in 2014 had not sought re-election, and one who did was defeated.

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 
Former District Court Judge Russel Lloyd has replaced Jim Sharp, the Houston-based court's only Democratic member, whom he defeated in the November 2014 election.

SECOND COURT OF APPEALS
352nd District Court Judge Bonnie Sudderth has replaced Justice Bob McCoy on the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth.

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
Cindy Bourland was selected to fill the Third Court of Appeals seat vacated by Justice Jeff Rose who is now Chief Justice of the Austin-based court. The appointment was made by Governor Rick Perry just prior to the end of his term of office. Bourland comes to the court from private practice.

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
Bexar County Court at Law Judge Jason Pulliam has joined the Fourth Court of Appeals as its only male and only African-American member. Rick Perry appointed him to the vacancy created by the election of associate justice Sandee Bryan Marion to chief justice.
Because Pulliam was serving as a county court judge at the time of the appointment, his elevation to the appellate bench also created a vacancy, but vacancies on county courts are filled by the County Commissioners, not by the Governor. The Bexar County Commissioners Court chose John A Longoria to succeed Pulliam as the presiding judge of County Court at Law No. 5 (CCL5).

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS 
David Schenck, an appellate practitioner, has replaced Justice Michael O’Neill, who retired.
Gov. Perry Appointed Schenck, to fill the vacancy on January 7, 2015.

TWELTH COURT OF APPEALS 
Greg Neeley, a solo, received an appointment to succeed Justice Sam Griffith on the Twelfth Court of Appeals. Griffith had two more years to go, but resigned to devote himself to ministry work.

LINKS: Judicial Appointment by Governor Rick (Judgepedia)

The newly appointed justices are filling unexpired terms and will have to stand for election in 2016 if they like their new jobs and want to keep them. The justices and chief justices who were elected in 2014 will not face the voters again until 2020. This is because court of appeals justices have six-year terms, while district court judges serve four year terms. District court judges must thus submit to the will of the electorate, and to the partisan tides, more frequently. They are also elected from smaller districts, which means that the geographic basis for voting patterns is not the same for appellate and district court races.

The year a judicial election contest takes place can be important also because of differences in turnout and in the composition of the subset of the electorate that votes in presidential election years versus mid-term elections. Judicial election outcomes are heavily driven by straight-ticket voting. A landslide in a presidential election year thus benefits the judicial candidates of the party that wins control of the White House. That meant victory for many Democratic judicial candidates in 2008 even though the state as whole did not go for Obama. But the voting patterns, and outcome-changing swings depend heavily on electoral geography because some districts are safely in the hands of one party, while others are more competitive.

LINKS: Texas Secretary of State - Election Results for 2014 General Elections
Judgepedia - Texas Judicial Elections 2014 including outcomes of district court races
BLOG POSTS: Texas Appellate Law Blog 2014 Election Results, Texas Appellate Edition (posted by Attorney D. Todd Smith)

A different kind of courthouse bench 

THE 2014 GENERAL ELECTION OUTCOME - HIGH COURT CONTESTS   

Republicans won all contested races for seats on the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and as a result all seats on both high courts remain in the hands of Republicans. Chief Nathan Hecht, Justice Jeff Brown, Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd, and Justice Phil Johnson ran as incumbents. Justice Johnson received the highest vote share (78.8%) because he did not even draw a Democratic Party challenger. The other incumbents on the Supreme Court handily won re-election with vote shares in the 59-60 percent range.

THE 2014 GENERAL ELECTIONS - JUDICIAL RACES - COURT OF APPEALS  

In the court of appeals races, all incumbents who ran for re-election in 2014 held on to their benches except one, Democrat Jim Sharp in Houston. As a result of Sharp's defeat, both Houston-based courts courts of appeals are now not only controlled by Republicans, but have, like the two courts of last resort in Texas, no minority party representation at all. But that does not mean that they always agree. Indeed, the Houston courts of appeals account for disproportionate share of dissenting opinions in state-wide comparison.

Republicans also won most of the other judicial contests around the state.

In Austin, Republican Jeff L. Rose defeated Democrat Diane Henson, a previous member of the Third Court of Appeals, in the open contest to succeed Woody Jones as Chief Justice.

In San Antonio, Republican Sandee Marion defeated Irene Alarcon Rios in the contest for chief justice that was also an open-seat race because the previous chief -- Catherine Stone -- had not sought re-election.

In Dallas, gubernatorial appointee Justice Craig Stoddart was confirmed by the voters. He had not drawn an opponent.

In Houston, Republican incumbent Kem Thompson Frost successfully defended her position as Chief on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals against Democratic challenger Kyle Carter, a Harris County District Court Judge first elected in 2008. Frost prevailed with a comfortable vote margin. On the same court, Ken Wise, also a former district court judge, beat off a challenge by Democratic candidate Gordon Goodman with 58.2% of the vote, an even higher share.

Also in Houston, as already mentioned, lone Democratic incumbent Jim Sharp went down in defeat. He received only 42.9% of the vote in his fight to stay on the First Court of Appeals, in which he did not even have the endorsement of the Houston Chronicle, despite the editorial board's preference for partisan diversity on the local courts of appeals.

In Corpus Christi, Democratic incumbent Dori Garza narrowly beat Republican challenger Doug Norman. 

Note: References to cities above are references to the seat of the court of appeals. The appellate districts from which the members of each courts of appeals are elected are much larger than the city and county in which the court is located. See --> Map of Texas Appellate Districts.  

Current Justices 2015 Membership Composition of Texas Courts of Appeals (Name and Place Designation)

jUSTICES OF THE TEXAS intermediate COURTS OF APPEALS AS OF FEBRUARY 2015 With linkS to each court’s website

The fourteen intermediate courts of appeals have a total membership of eighty justices, ranging from three for the smallest courts to 13 for the largest. Members of the courts of appeals are called justices. They share this title with the members of the two highest courts, the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as with the judges on the lowest level of the judicial hierarchy, the Justices of the the Peace, JPs for short.

Justices on the courts of appeals serve six-year terms. There are two selection methods: election or appointment to a vacant position by the governor. Appointed justices must eventually submit to elections in order to remain on the court.

Vacancies occur as a result of death in office (rare) or resignation before a justice's term expires (quite common), or promotion of a sitting member to higher office, such as from associate justice* to chief justice (e.g., Justice Nathan L. Hecht, now Chief Justice Hecht), or promotion form a lower court to a higher one, e.g. appointment of a member of a Houston court of appeals to the Supreme Court (Justice Eva Guzman in 2009, Justice Jeff Brown in 2013), or to the Court of Criminal Appeals (e.g. Justice Elsa Alcala in 2011). 

First Court of Appeals IN HOUSTON  

Sherry Radack, Chief Justice| Justice Jane Bland, Place 2 | Justice Russell Lloyd, Place 3 | Justice Evelyn Keyes, Place 4 | Justice Laura Carter Higley, Place 5 | Justice Harvey G. Brown, Place 6 | Justice Terry Jennings, Place 7 | Justice Michael C. Massengale, Place 8 | Justice Rebeca A. Huddle, Place 9.  

Second Court of Appeals In Fort WORTH

Terrie Livingston, Chief Justice | Justice Bill Meier, Place 2 | Justice Anne Gardner, Place 3 | Justice Bonnie Sudderth, Place 4 | Justice Sue Walker, Place 5 | Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot, Place 6 | Justice Lee Gabriel, Place 7.

Third Court of Appeals IN AUSTIN

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice | Justice Cindy Bourland, Place 2 | Justice Scott Field, Place 3 | Justice Melissa Goodwin, Place 4 | Justice David Puryear, Place 5 | Justice Bob Pemberton, Place 6.

Fourth Court of Appeals IN SAN ANTONIO

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice | Justice Marialyn Barnard, Place 2 | Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Place 3 | Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Place 4 | Justice Karen Angelini, Place 5 | Justice Jason Pulliam, Place 6 | Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Place 7.

Fifth Court of Appeals IN DALLAS

Carolyn Wright, Chief Justice | Justice David Evans, Place 2 | Justice  Ada Brown, Place 3 | Justice Lana Myers, Place 4 | Justice Craig Stoddart, Place 5 | Justice David L. Bridges, Place 6 | Justice Michael J. (Mike) O’Neill, Place 7 | Justice Bill Whitehill, Place 8 | Justice David Lewis, Place 9 | Justice Molly Francis, Place 10 | Justice Douglas S. Lang, Place 11 | Justice Robert M. (Bob) Fillmore, Place 12 | Justice Elizabeth Lang-Miers, Place 13.

Sixth Court of Appeals IN TEXARKANA

Josh R. Morriss III, Chief Justice | Justice Bailey C. Moseley, Place 2 | Justice Ralph K Burgess, Place 3.

Seventh Court of Appeals IN AMARILLO

Brian Quinn, Chief Justice | Justice Mackey K. Hancock, Place 2 | Justice Patrick A. Pirtle, Place 3 | Justice James T. Campbell, Place 4.

Eighth Court of Appeals IN EL PASO

Ann Crawford McClure, Chief Justice | Justice Yvonne T. Rodriguez, Place 2 | Justice Steven Hughes, Place 3.

Ninth Court of Appeals IN BEAUMONT

Steve McKeithen, Chief Justice | Justice Charles Kreger, Place 2 | Justice Leanne Johnson, Place 3 | Justice Hollis Horton, Place 4.

Tenth Court of Appeals IN WACO

Tom Gray, Chief Justice | Justice Rex Davis, Place 2 | Justice Al Scoggins, Place 3.

Eleventh Court of Appeals IN EASTLAND

Jim R. Wright, Chief Justice | Justice Mike Willson, Place 2 | Justice John M. Bailey, Place 3.

Twelfth Court of Appeals IN TYLER

James T. “Jim” Worthen, Chief Justice | Justice Brian Hoyle, Place 2 | Justice Greg Neeley, Place 3.

Thirteenth Court of Appeals  IN CORPUS CHRISTI / EDINBURG

Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice | Justice Nora Longoria, Place 2 | Justice Gregory T. Perkes, Place 3 | Justice Nelda V. Rodriguez, Place 4 | Justice Gina M. Benavides, Place 5 | Justice Dori Contreras Garza, Place 6.

Fourteenth Court of Appeals IN HOUSTON

Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice | Justice Sharon McCally, Place 2 | Justice Brett Busby, Place 3 | Justice Mark Brown, Place 4 | Justice Martha Hill Jamison, Place 5 | Justice William J. Boyce, Place 6 | Justice Ken Wise, Place 7 | Justice John Donovan, Place 8 | Justice Tracy Christopher, Place 9.  

RESOURCES ON THE WEB – NAVIGATION ON TEXAS JUDICIARY WEBSITE(S)

Biographies and photos of justices of each court of appeals can be found by following the link in the left-hand corner denoted “About the Court” on each court-specific home page.  See example for San Antonio Court of Appeals below:

Judge Bios on Texas Judiciary Websites (each court has its own URL and home page)

TEXAS JUDICIAL BRANCH WEBSITE NAVIGATION

Background information on Texas judges and justices can also be found on the Judgepedia website.

*) The terms associate justice is used to refer to members of the courts of appeals other than the chief justice in analogy to the terminology used by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no official equivalent to "associate justice" on the Texas Court of Appeals. There are only two titles: Chief Justice and Justice. 

How Texas case law is referenced and cited as legal authority

HOW CASE LAW IS REFERENCED AND CITED AS LEGAL AUTHORITY 

Supreme court opinions or cases are cited as “authority” by courts and by litigators, and are referenced by the names of the parties (case style) or a least one of them (in the case of an original proceeding) followed by the opinions location (volume and page number) in the South Western Reporter (S.W.3d), the leading compilation of case law published in print. The year the decision was handed down is included in parenthesis.  

Almost nobody consults the printed and bound volumes of the South Western Reporter, which now number thousands, any more. This is because the content has long been available electronically and much more user-friendly, with hyperlink to cited cases. Google Scholar now also offers this feature, though its coverage is not complete match of what appears in the Reporters.

But the citation system based on published volumes has not been changed: The three-digit number before the "S.W.3d" identifies the volume number, while the number behind it identifies the page number. The "2d" and then the "3d" became necessary because the number of volumes ran beyond 999, so the volume count was restarted at 1, with 2nd and 3d added to denote the second and third series, respectively.

For natural persons, as opposed to governmental and corporate entities, only the last names are used in the case citations. For example: Kerlin v. Arias, 274 S.W.3d 666 (2008). Kerlin is short for Gilbert Kerlin  Individually, and Gilbert Kerlin, Trustee, Windward Oil & Gas Corp., and PI Corp, Petitioners. Arias is short for Gloria Soto Arais, et al. as Respondents. The abbreviation "et al." means that there are additional parties who are not identified by name in the case style. The additional parties are omitted from the case cite, and long names of corporate entities are often abbreviated.

Cases decided as original proceedings only contain the name of the party on whose behalf the petition was filed; e.g. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). Reece is short for Coy Reece. In a mandamus proceeding, the filing party is called Relator, rather than Petitioner or Appellant.

For newly decided case, the citation for the South Western Reporter is not available immediately. In the interim, cases are therefore cited with information on where they can be found on Westlaw  or Lexis-Nexis and/or with hyperlink to the Texas Supreme Court website, or both. These citations typically also include the cause number, which identifies the year in which the proceeding was commenced, and also includes the decision date, i.e. the date the opinions were released on the Supreme Court's website, which is typically a Friday;

e.g. In re Deepwater Horizon, No. 13-0670 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015).

Example of Opinion Release/Order Page: February 13. 2015

This was a high-profile case that was referred to the Texas Supreme Court by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision on disputed insurance coverage for damages resulting from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico under state law. Such referrals are rare and are labeled "certified questions".  

As seen in the Deepwater Horizon case, some cases only have one party’s name in the case style. More common examples that certified questions are mandamus proceedings cases; e.g In re The Office of the Attorney General; In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); and some actually indicate what the case is about; e.g. In re Commitment of Hill.

Most case names, however, do not give any clue as to what the case was about, or what legal issues were raised on appeal. That said, some supreme court cases are easily recognized as important simply because a party is well-known. In In re Deepwater Horizon case decide in February is an obvious example. The parties in other cases become well-known only because the case in which they were a party happens to be the vehicle through which the Supreme Court answers a question importance to the jurisprudence of the state, and thereby creates precedent that is binding on all lower courts state-wide.

LAW IN THE FORM OF OPINIONS FROM THE COURTS OF APPEALS  

Unlike the opinions of the Supreme Court, not all of the opinions handed down in court of appeals cases are published in the Southwestern Reporter. Those that are not are called "unpublished" opinion, but that is really a misnomer because all such opinions are in fact published on the court's own website; are available via commercial data and litigation support services; and are also distributed by Google Scholar. Google Scholar now also harvests procedural orders, in addition to opinions deciding and dismissing appellate cases. So-called "unpublished" cases may even be cited as authority, though they do not carry the same weight as cases cited with the S.W.3d behind the case style.

Unlike the Supreme Court's decisions, the holding of a court of appeal on a particular issue of law is binding only on the lower courts within its jurisdiction (the geographically defined appellate district), and must not be inconsistent with supreme court precedent. If it is, or if the holding of one court of appeals on the same legal issue is at variance with the how a sister court has decided the same issue, the Supreme Court may be asked to decide the conflict. --> Conflicts jurisdiction.

THERE ARE APPEALS, AND THEN THERE ARE APPEALS BY A DIFFERENT NAME   

Appeal vs. Mandamus / Habeas Corpus 

A mandamus case filed in the court of appeals is actually denominated an "original" proceeding, but it is original only in the court of appeals and it still pertains to a trial judge's act or inaction in a pending case in a trial court. So, given those characteristics, a mandamus proceeding has most of the hallmarks of an appeal of the interlocutory variety. It is more similar to an interlocutory appeal than a regular appeal because it is typically brought while a case is pending in the trial court.

In a mandamus case, the case style is different (In re BCD as opposed to BCD vs XYZ) and the party bringing the complaint is called relator, rather than the appellant. The opposing "party" in the mandamus proceeding is technically the judge whose ruling or other conduct forms the basis for the complaint, while the other party in the underlying suit is called the "real party in interest", and not the appellee, as in a regular or interlocutory appeal. Beyond the difference in terminology, there are also different rules that govern these types of appeals, and what types of papers are used to support it.

The main purpose of a mandamus proceeding is to obtain relief against a judge when no other remedy is available and it would arguably be too late to pursue an appeal from a final judgment, for example when one party claims it should not be forced to turn over documents that contain trade secrets or confidential information, but the trial judge nevertheless orders them to do so. Under such circumstances, the resisting party may try to get the judge in question "mandamused" by appealing to higher authority, i.e. the court of appeals. The vehicle to do so is a petition for writ of mandamus, which may be accompanied by an emergency request for an immediate stay of the trial court's order.
A petition of habeas corpus filed in the court of appeals has much in common with a petition for a writ of mandamus, but is restricted to situations where the trial court's order puts the party in jail ("confinement").

Texas Judiciary Organizational Chart - Multiple Levels of Appellate Courts and Two Courts of Last Resort at the Top

THE MULTI-TIER STRUCTURE OF THE TEXAS JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

Texas Judicial System: Multiple levels of trial courts and appellate courts -

 Two high courts at the peak (click to enlarge the chart)

BIFURCATED HIGH COURTS AT THE PINNACLE: CRIMINAL VS CIVIL

While most states, like the United States (federal judiciary), have only one highest court, Texas has two. The Texas Supreme Court has the last word in civil and juvenile cases, while the Court of Criminal Appeals hears appeals in criminal cases, including death penalty cases. Sometimes the division of labor is not entirely clear, and jurisdictional squabbles occur.

Cases may go to the U.S. Supreme Court after decision by either high court (or neither, if they decline review), but such appeals to the highest federal court, which are initiated by petition for certiorari ("cert"), are restricted to matters of federal law, most notably federal constitutional law. Most cases arrive at the Texas Supreme Court either by Petition for review (PFR) or by Petition for Writ of Mandamus. There are a few other types of cases in addition to these. 

THE SUPREME COURT AS A RULE-MAKING AND LAW-MAKING COURT

You may have learned in high school, and probably even earlier, that the court interprets the law, and that is certainly not incorrect. But it is not an exhaustive description of what the court does either. The Supreme court also makes law, though this is done differently from what happens in the Legislature. The terminology used also differs. 

The lawmaking by the Texas Supreme Court -- or policymaking, to use the language of political science -- takes two principal forms: rule making and issuance of opinions in cases appealed to the court and decided by it. Additionally, the Texas Supreme Court supervises the State Bar of Texas, which is to say the practice of law, because membership and good standing (license) are mandatory for attorneys to practice in this state. As such, the Supreme Court also functions as the highest authority in attorney disciplinary matters.

Texas Court Rules - Available from Texas Supreme Court Website 

Rules are not referred to as law, but they have the force of law and govern the litigation process at all levels of the Texas judicial system. The law made through opinions takes the form of “holdings” on legal issues that arise in litigation, and the opinions that announce those holdings become binding precedents for all of the lower courts, including the courts of appeals. The body of the holdings and opinions in which they are articulated is called case law. Dissenting opinions, however, are not binding law.

THE APPELLATE SYSTEM IN TEXAS: HOW MANY LEVELS? 

Texas has a multi-layered judicial system that includes two levels of appellate courts, the fourteen intermediate courts of appeals and the two courts of last resort, the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

There is arguably a third level because the county courts hear appeals from justice courts in addition to hearing cases that are originally filed in county court. Both types of courts are trial courts, but the county courts act as appellate courts in a limited fashion. 

These appeals, however, differ from appeals taken from the county and district courts to the court of appeals because the county court is a trial court, and does not review the actions of the justice court, but instead retries the case. It would be hard to do so because the justice courts are not “courts of record”. That does not mean that no records are kept at all. In fact, the case file must be forwarded to the county court for the appeal. It means that there is no court reporter’s record that would allow the second court to review what happened in the court below. 

The courts of appeals, by contrast, rely exclusively on the record of the trial courts below, which consists of the clerk’s record (the pleadings and other papers filed in the case, the judgment or other court order relevant to the appeal) and the reporter’s record from the trial or hearing, if there was one. Courts of appeals do not re-try case, and they do not consider evidence outside the record, although there are some limited exceptions for matters that affect jurisdiction, such as mootness. 

An appeal of a case first filed and decided in the justice court does not involve a review of the actions of the lower court for error, but results in the case being decided “de novo” (anew) in the county court. The filing of an appeal from a judgment rendered by the justice court, which requires the posting of bond or an affidavit of indigence, has the effect of vacating that judgment, wiping the slate clean so the parties get to start over in county court. 

The filing of an appeal from a county court judgment or a district court judgment, by contrast, does not result in the judgment being vacated. If the judgment is not superseded, it will be enforceable even though an appeal is pending and even though the court of appeals has yet to determine whether the judgment involved any error, and whether it must be reversed in whole or in part. 

In addition to appeals from final judgments and other trial court orders that finally dispose of a case for good (such as an order of dismissal for want of prosecution, final summary judgment, or dismissal for jurisdictional reasons), the courts of appeals also hears appeals from orders of trial courts that are not final. There are two basic categories of such appeals: interlocutory appeals and mandamus proceedings. These types of appeals allow a party to seek the attention of the higher court without having to wait until the case is finally decided in the trial court in which the case is pending.

APPELLATE CASE LOAD STATISTICS 

FOR THE INTERMEDIATE COURTS OF APPEAL

Court of Appeals Activity Statistics for FY 2014 from Annual Report
(Click to enlarge image) 

TEXAS SUPREME COURT ACTIVITY (FY 2014)

PETITION GRANT RATE BY COURT OF APPEAL

PFR Grant Rate by Originating Court of Appeals