In Re Ramirez

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re Ramirez

133 S.W.3d 664, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 1943, 2003 WL 898751

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 27, 2003

Docket13-03-00119-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 133 S.W.3d 664 (In Re Ramirez) 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

In Re Ramirez, 133 S.W.3d 664, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 1943, 2003 WL 898751 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HINOJOSA, Justice.

Relators, Manuela Ramirez, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Ruben Ramirez, Sr., deceased, Claudia N. Hernandez, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Ruben Ramirez, Sr., deceased, Ruben Ramirez, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Ruben Ramirez, Sr., deceased, and Natividad Bena-vides de Ramirez, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Ruben Ramirez, Sr., deceased, have filed a motion for temporary emergency relief. In the motion, relators request that this Court stay an order signed on February 20, 2003, by respondent, the Honorable Jack E. Hunter, Judge of the 94th District Court of Nueces County, denying their “Motion to Prevent Ex Parte Contact by Defendants (and their Attorneys) With Decedent, Ruben Ramirez, Sr.’s Non-Party Physicians” in cause number 01-4601-C. Relators ask that we stay the order “until the mandamus proceeding is finally decided.” However, relators have not filed a petition for writ of mandamus.

Before an appellate court can grant temporary relief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10, an original proceeding must first be commenced. In re Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.10. Implicit within Rule 52.10 is the necessity for a petition to *665 be filed before the appellate court can grant emergency relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. Until a petition is filed, there is no dispute before the court. In re Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d at 52.

Because relators have not filed a petition for writ of mandamus, we conclude we have no jurisdiction to consider the motion. Accordingly, we dismiss relators’ motion for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice to reassert the motion after commencing a proceeding pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.1.

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

OPINION

HINOJOSA, Justice.

Relators, Manuela Ramirez, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Ruben Ramirez, Sr., deceased, Claudia N. Hernandez, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Ruben Ramirez, Sr., deceased, Ruben Ramirez, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Ruben Ramirez, Sr., deceased, and Natividad Bena-vides de Ramirez, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Ruben Ramirez, Sr., deceased, have filed a motion for temporary emergency relief. In the motion, relators request that this Court stay an order signed on February 20, 2003, by respondent, the Honorable Jack E. Hunter, Judge of the 94th District Court of Nueces County, denying their “Motion to Prevent Ex Parte Contact by Defendants (and their Attorneys) With Decedent, Ruben Ramirez, Sr.’s Non-Party Physicians” in cause number 01-4601-C. Relators ask that we stay the order “until the mandamus proceeding is finally decided.” However, relators have not filed a petition for writ of mandamus.

Before an appellate court can grant temporary relief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10, an original proceeding must first be commenced. In re Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.10. Implicit within Rule 52.10 is the necessity for a petition to *665 be filed before the appellate court can grant emergency relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. Until a petition is filed, there is no dispute before the court. In re Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d at 52.

Because relators have not filed a petition for writ of mandamus, we conclude we have no jurisdiction to consider the motion. Accordingly, we dismiss relators’ motion for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice to reassert the motion after commencing a proceeding pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.W.3d 664, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 1943, 2003 WL 898751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ramirez-texapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack