testimony by Dr. Brown that she had not had staff privileges at any hospital for several years. On this record, the trial court would have no discretion to conclude that the plaintiffs thought Dr. Brown was qualified due to an accident or mistake. * * * Because the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the hospital’s motion to dismiss, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and order the trial court to vacate its order and enter a new order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against the hospital. We are confident the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not. Justice WAINWRIGHT filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice JEFFERSON and Justice O’NEILL joined. 1 . See, e.g., In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 322 (Tex.2005) (<HOLDING>); In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 321
recognizing drug traffickers will commonly possess firearms to protect their product to protect their drugs to protect their cash to protect their life and even to protect their turf alteration in original internal quotation marks omit ted holding that mandamus is appropriate to challenge temporary orders holding when the state statute did not abrogate the common law rule the only available damage remedy in a mandamus action was one for making a false return and damages for the delay in doing the thing the mandamus sought to command could not be sought in the mandamus action holding mandamus available to protect legislative continuance holding mandamus available to protect exclusive jurisdiction of executive agency and prevent disruption of orderly processes of government