The Texas Court of Appeals has denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Benjamin Harrison and Morgan Harrison. This decision affects their ongoing legal dispute with Allan Houck, who is acting as next friend for a minor. The ruling, delivered on October 28, 2026, is significant as it determines the course of the case currently pending in the 57th Judicial District Court in Bexar County, Texas.

The court's ruling means that the Harrisons will not receive the relief they sought through this legal action. This decision is crucial for the parties involved, particularly as it relates to the rights and responsibilities in the ongoing case.

Background

Benjamin Harrison and Morgan Harrison are the relators in this case. They filed their petition for a writ of mandamus on August 27, 2026. The petition arose from an ongoing dispute with Allan Houck, who is representing a minor identified as F.H. in the case. The case is currently being heard in the 57th Judicial District Court in Bexar County, Texas, where Judge Antonia Arteaga presides.

The dispute involves claims made by Houck against the Harrisons, which have not been detailed in the court's opinion. The petition for a writ of mandamus is a legal request asking the court to compel a lower court or government official to perform a duty they are obligated to complete. In this instance, the Harrisons sought a specific action from the lower court related to their case.

After the Harrisons filed their petition, the real party in interest, Allan Houck, submitted a response on September 18, 2026. The court then reviewed the petition, the response, and the relevant mandamus record before making its decision.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that the relators, Benjamin Harrison and Morgan Harrison, are not entitled to the relief they sought. The court stated, "After considering relators’ petition, the real party’s response, and the mandamus record, we conclude relators are not entitled to the relief sought." This ruling was delivered by a per curiam opinion, meaning it was issued collectively by the judges without specifying individual authorship.

The judges sitting on the case included Lori Massey Brissette, Adrian A. Spears II, and Velia J. Meza. Their decision to deny the petition indicates that the court did not find sufficient grounds to grant the Harrisons' request for a writ of mandamus.

Impact

The denial of the writ of mandamus has significant implications for Benjamin and Morgan Harrison. It means that they will have to continue with their case in the lower court without the relief they sought through this petition. The ruling may affect their strategy moving forward, as they will need to address the issues raised in the original case against them.

This decision also underscores the challenges that parties face when seeking extraordinary relief through a writ of mandamus. The court's ruling may serve as a reminder that such petitions are not easily granted, and parties must present compelling reasons for the court to intervene in lower court proceedings.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the Harrisons plan to appeal this decision. However, they may have the option to pursue other legal avenues in the ongoing case against them. The outcome of the case in the 57th Judicial District Court will continue to unfold as both sides prepare for the next steps in this legal dispute.