in Re Raymond C. Clark, Jr.
Opinion
Opinion issued September 27, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
underlying proceeding, relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. See TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 109.002(b) (West 2014); In re Moore, No. 05-14-01173-CV, 2016 WL
80205, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2016, orig. proceeding) (citations omitted);
In re Harrell, No. 01-13-00517-CV, 2014 WL 866044, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Mar. 4, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citations omitted).2
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.
2 In an issue in his petition, relator contends that he does not have an adequate remedy at law because portions of the electronically recorded trial court proceedings are inaudible. Relator may raise his contentions that the reporter’s record is incomplete or inaccurate in an appeal from the trial court’s order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(e), (f); see, e.g., Akinwamide v. Trans. Ins. Co., No. 01-15-00066-CV, 2016 WL 3662696, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 7, 2016, no. pet. h.); Villagomez Invs., L.L.C. v. Magee, 294 S.W.3d 687, 689–90 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re Raymond C. Clark, Jr. (in Re Raymond C. Clark, Jr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.