in Re: Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo
This text of in Re: Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo (in Re: Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo) 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.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
§ No. 08-16-00103-CV
IN RE: LINDA S. RESTREPO AND § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CARLOS E. RESTREPO, § ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF RELATORS. § PROHIBITION
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators, Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, have filed a petition for writ of
prohibition against the Honorable Stephen Ables, presiding judge of the County Court at Law
No. 5 of El Paso County, Texas.1 Relators have also filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the
trial court. The motion to stay and the petition for writ of prohibition are denied.
A writ of prohibition operates like an injunction issued by a superior court to control,
limit, or prevent action in a court of inferior jurisdiction. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals,
767 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tex. 1989); In re Cap Rock Energy Corporation, 225 S.W.3d 160
(Tex.App.--El Paso 2005, original proceeding). The purpose of the writ is to enable a superior
court to protect and enforce its jurisdiction and judgments. Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 683;
Caprock, 225 S.W.3d at 160. The writ is typically used to protect the subject matter of an appeal
or to prohibit an unlawful interference with the enforcement of a superior court’s orders and
1 Judge Ables is sitting by assignment. judgments. Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 683. An appellate court does not have jurisdiction, absent
actual jurisdiction of a pending proceeding, to issue a writ of prohibition requiring that a trial
court refrain from performing a future act. See In re Nguyen, 155 S.W.3d 191, 194 (Tex.App.--
Tyler 2003, orig. proceeding); Lesikar v. Anthony, 750 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Tex.App.--Houston
[1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding).
Having reviewed the petition and attached appendix, we find that the Restrepos have
failed to establish that issuance of the writ of prohibition is necessary to protect the subject
matter of a pending appeal or to prohibit interference with enforcement of an order or judgment
of this Court. Accordingly, we deny the motion to stay and the petition for writ of prohibition.
See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.8(a), 52.10.
June 1, 2016 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. Hughes, J., Not Participating
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re: Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-linda-s-restrepo-and-carlos-e-restrepo-texapp-2016.