# Terrazas v. Ramirez

> Texas Supreme Court · December 17, 1991 · 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 256

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654916

## Case

- **Full name:** Louis TERRAZAS, Et Al., Relators, v. Hon. Mario E. RAMIREZ, Judge of the 332nd District Court in Hidalgo County, Texas, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 17, 1991
- **Citations:** 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 256; 829 S.W.2d 712; 1991 Tex. LEXIS 160; 1991 WL 269035
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gonzalez
- **Judges:** Cook, Cornyn, Doggett, Gammage, Gonzalez, Hecht, Hightower, Mauzy, Phillips
- **Cited by:** 154 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654916

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that the court has previously allowed parties to seek mandamus relief when they did not first present a request to the trial court because the demand would otherwise be futile (citing Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. 1979) (orig. proceeding
- holding that Attorney General’s "broad discretionary power” includes authority to settle actions contesting constitutionality of statutes
- holding that as a general rule mandamus is not available to compel an action which has not first been demanded and refused
- stating that mandamus will generally not lie to compel action that has not first been demanded and refused
- recognizing that a person need not be a party to the underlying litigation to seek mandamus relief

## Opinion text

GONZALEZ, Justice,
concurring.
I join Justice Hecht’s opinion on rehearing but write separately to observe that Justices Mauzy and Doggett mis-character-ized the redistricting “mess” as a three-ring circus with federal judges “taming the legislative lion.” Dissenting Opinion at 757. With all due respect, the three-judge federal district court, like a 1000-pound gorilla, needed no excuse to do what it has done or what it may do in the future. Our prior opinions in this case did not open the “cage.” The cage was opened when Texas joined the Union.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that the Constitution and laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby_” U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2. Therefore, anything we do or say is irrelevant as to whether the legislative plan or the “federal” plan ultimately will govern the upcoming elections. The outcome now rests with the United States Supreme Court. I hope that the Court, in the interest of comity and deference to the Legislature, will permit the upcoming elections to go forward under the plan adopted by the Texas Legislature in its recent special session.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654916. Public record. Not legal advice.