In Re Quintilya Thomas v. the State of Texas
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
petition. Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a), (b). Although Rule 52.10(b) authorizes this Court to grant
temporary relief, it implicitly requires a petition to invoke our jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
52.10(b); see also In re Hicks, 524 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, orig. proceeding) (finding
an emergency motion filed without a petition to be “premature” and dismissing the motion); In re
Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding) (“Implicit within this
rule is the need for a petition to be filed before the court can grant emergency relief.”); In re
Nonamé, No. 03-25-00937-CV, 2025 WL 3491569, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 5, 2025, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction a motion for temporary relief without
a petition).
Because Relator has not commenced an original proceeding, we lack jurisdiction over her
motion seeking emergency relief. We dismiss the motion for want of jurisdiction without prejudice
to refiling after a petition for writ of mandamus has been filed.
MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice
March 20, 2026
Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In Re Quintilya Thomas v. the State of Texas (In Re Quintilya Thomas v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.