Chapa v. Betts

Court of Appeals of Texas

Chapa v. Betts

534 S.W.2d 446, 1976 Tex. App. LEXIS 2551

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 10, 1976

Docket12442

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 534 S.W.2d 446 (Chapa v. Betts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chapa v. Betts, 534 S.W.2d 446, 1976 Tex. App. LEXIS 2551 (Tex. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Relator being denied the right to intervene in a proceeding in district court to terminate a 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Relator being denied the right to intervene in a proceeding in district court to terminate a 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 S.W.2d 446, 1976 Tex. App. LEXIS 2551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapa-v-betts-texapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack