Williams v. Murray

Texas Supreme Court

Williams v. Murray

350 S.W.2d 332, 162 Tex. 616, 5 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 84, 1961 Tex. LEXIS 600

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1961

DocketNo. A-8656

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 350 S.W.2d 332 (Williams v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Murray, 350 S.W.2d 332, 162 Tex. 616, 5 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 84, 1961 Tex. LEXIS 600 (Tex. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Williams v. Blalack, Tex. Civ App., 349 S.W. 2d 274, the judgment of the trial court sustaining a plea of privilege was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. Relator, who was appellant in that cause, has now presented to the Supreme Court his motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus to require the Justices of the Court of Civil Appeals to certify questions on the ground that their decision conflicts with the decisions of this Court and other Courts of Civil appeals.

Article 1821, Vernon’s Ann. Tex. Civ. Stat., was amended in 1953 to provide that nothing therein should deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction of any case falling within the terms of either Subdivision 1 or Subdivision 2 of Article 1728, Vernon’s Ann. Tex. Civ. Stat., and which was brought to the Court of Civil Appeals from an appealable judgment of the trial court. If the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals mentioned above does conflict with a prior decision of another Court of Civil Appeals or the Supreme Court as contended by relator, the Supreme Court has writ of error jurisdiction of the case. See Brown v. Gulf Television Co., 157 Tex. 607, 306 S.W. 2d 706; Hammonds v. Hammonds, 155 Tex. 207, 285 S.W. 2d 362; State v. Wynn, 157 Tex. 200, 301 S.W. 2d 76. Mandamus will not issue to require certification of questions in a case which can reach us by writ of error. Joseph Zukin of California v. Archer, 150 Tex. 158, 238 S.W. 2d 171. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is accordingly overruled.

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

PER CURIAM.

In Williams v. Blalack, Tex. Civ App., 349 S.W. 2d 274, the judgment of the trial court sustaining a plea of privilege was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. Relator, who was appellant in that cause, has now presented to the Supreme Court his motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus to require the Justices of the Court of Civil Appeals to certify questions on the ground that their decision conflicts with the decisions of this Court and other Courts of Civil appeals.

Article 1821, Vernon’s Ann. Tex. Civ. Stat., was amended in 1953 to provide that nothing therein should deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction of any case falling within the terms of either Subdivision 1 or Subdivision 2 of Article 1728, Vernon’s Ann. Tex. Civ. Stat., and which was brought to the Court of Civil Appeals from an appealable judgment of the trial court. If the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals mentioned above does conflict with a prior decision of another Court of Civil Appeals or the Supreme Court as contended by relator, the Supreme Court has writ of error jurisdiction of the case. See Brown v. Gulf Television Co., 157 Tex. 607, 306 S.W. 2d 706; Hammonds v. Hammonds, 155 Tex. 207, 285 S.W. 2d 362; State v. Wynn, 157 Tex. 200, 301 S.W. 2d 76. Mandamus will not issue to require certification of questions in a case which can reach us by writ of error. Joseph Zukin of California v. Archer, 150 Tex. 158, 238 S.W. 2d 171. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is accordingly overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 S.W.2d 332, 162 Tex. 616, 5 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 84, 1961 Tex. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-murray-tex-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack