In Re Simpson

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re Simpson

997 S.W.2d 939, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 6786, 1999 WL 692354

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 1, 1999

Docket10-99-227-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by52 cases

This text of 997 S.W.2d 939 (In Re Simpson) 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 Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 6786, 1999 WL 692354 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Lee Roger Simpson, Jr. seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the District Clerk of Falls County to accept for filing a motion deposited with the clerk’s office on July 27, 1999. We dismiss the petition for mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

Section 22.221 of the Government Code prescribes the original jurisdiction of the courts of appeals. That section states:

(b) Each court of appeals for a court of appeals district may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a:

(1) judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district; or

(2) judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52, Code of Criminal Procedure, • in the court of appeals district.

Tex. Gov’t Code Anr § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp.1998). The Government Code does not confer mandamus jurisdiction over District Clerks upon the courts of appeals. Id.; see HCA Health Servs., of Tex., Inc. v. Salinas, 838 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Tex.1992). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

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