Chapa v. Betts, 12442
| Citation | 534 S.W.2d 446 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 12442,12442 |
| Parties | Mary Alice CHAPA, Relator, v. Honorable Charles O. BETTS, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Regina Lynn Rogoff, Travis County Legal Aid and Defender Society, Austin, for appellant.
Relator being denied the right to intervene in a proceeding in district court to terminate parent-child relationship, petitioned this Court on February 23, 1976, for leave to file her application for writ of mandamus to require the trial court to set aside an illegal order denying Relator right of intervention and a hearing. Petition was granted and hearing on application for mandamus set for 9 o'clock a.m. on February 25, 1976.
Upon hearing before this Court, it appears that intervention sought below was grounded on Relator's interest in the child, by reason of having actual and continuous custody of the child since its birth to date, a period of about seven and one-half years, and pursuant to authority of Article 11.03, Texas Family Code, and Rule 60, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
This Court concludes that petition to file application for mandamus was improvidently granted, since under the limited powers of mandamus accorded intermediate appellate courts in Texas this Court is without jurisdiction to order the trial court to set aside an illegal order. Arts. 1823, 1824, V.A.C.S.; Crane v. Tunks, 160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434, 438 (1959). Only the Supreme Court has power in mandamus proceedings to require district courts to set aside an illegal order. State Board of Insurance v. Betts, 158 Tex. 612, 315 S.W.2d 279 (1958); Buttery v. Betts, 422 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Sup.1967).
The petition for mandamus is dismissed.
Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Bar of Tex. v. Heard
...trial court to set aside a void interlocutory order. Crane v. Tunks, 160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434, 438 (1959); Chapa v. Betts, 534 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1976). Respondent Heard next argues that mandamus will not lie because this court does not have jurisdiction to correct an ......
-
Texas Employment Com'n v. Norris
...such authority is conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of Texas. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. Art. 1735 (1962). See and cf. Chapa v. Betts, 534 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1976, orig. Moreover, said order is in effect a suit against the State without alleging consent to sue. State......
-
Berman v. Kirk, 5001
...v. Tunks, 160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434 (1959); Cogdell v. Williams, 461 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1970); Chapa v. Betts, 534 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1976); Longbine v. Johnson, 347 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1961); Julian v. Hoffman, 520 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Civ.App.--D......
-
Dickson v. Jones, 15359
...160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434 (1959), Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company v. Loughridge, 423 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Civ.App.1968, no writ), Chapa v. Betts, 534 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.Civ .App.1976, no writ), Berman v. Kirk, 543 S.W.2d 27, 2 Tex.Ct.Rpt. 151 (Tex.Civ.App.1976), Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 1823 and ......