“Bexar County Parties”) present the following issues: (1) Did the trial court violate Evans’s due process rights? (2) Did the trial court lack authority to designate Evans as a person responsible for providing outpatient mental health services to Campbell and to order the Bexar County Center to provide outpatient mental health services to Campbell? (3) Is the evidence legally and factually insufficient to support the commitment orders? (4) Is the commitment order improper because the trial court did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Texas Mental Health Code? The State asserts that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction. In his petition for writ of mandamus, Evans presents the following issues: (1) Did the trial court have jurisdiction to 5 S.W.2d 659, 662 (Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>); Robbins v. Limestone Cty., 114 Tex. 345, 268
holding that the district had standing to raise claims on behalf of the appellant because the district had a direct financial stake in supporting the position that appellants former wife is the owner of the underlying funds holding that an attorney charged with misconduct had standing on the basis of reputational injury to appeal those portions of the district courts opinion that reflected unfavorably on the attorneys professional conduct even though the district court had otherwise dismissed the charges holding the government waived its standing argument when it was put on notice the defendant would claim a privacy interest holding that appraisal district had standing based on its interest in the validity of the statute that it is charged with implementing holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop