Brady v. Fry

5 Citing cases

  1. Grimm v. Garner

    589 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. 1979)   Cited 21 times
    Holding right to appeal and obtain trial de novo provided adequate remedy at law

    Trial courts that have issued extraordinary writs violative of this rule have also been held to be without jurisdiction to act. See Winfrey v. Chandler, 159 Tex. 220, 318 S.W.2d 59, 61 (1958) (district court writ of prohibition issued to prohibit county judge from trying a criminal case); Brady v. Fry, 517 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1974, no writ) (district court writ of mandamus issued to require municipal court to conduct a hearing on motion). By amendment to Article V, Section 5 of the Constitution, effective January 1, 1978, the jurisdiction of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was expanded to confer concurrent jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus in cases "regarding criminal matters."

  2. Cobb v. English

    579 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over these appellate proceedings to determine and declare, Sua sponte, the invalidity of the judgment. Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823, 827 (1961); Travelers Express Company, Inc. v. Winters, 488 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Brady v. Fry, 517 S.W.2d 304, 308 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1974, no writ). Since the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction of the cause of action asserted, we have no alternative but to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to dismiss the cause.

  3. Ramsey v. Morris

    578 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 8 times

    The trial court did not err in dismissing the application for the writ of certiorari because it lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ. Winfrey v. Chandler, supra; Brady v. Fry, 517 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1974, no writ hist.). An additional reason why the judgment of the trial court dismissing the application for writ of certiorari was not erroneous lies in the fact that an adequate remedy at law was available to the applicant.

  4. G. C. D. v. State

    577 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)

    Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over these appellate proceedings to declare its invalidity. Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823, 827 (1961); Travelers Express Company, Inc. v. Winters, 488 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Brady v. Fry, 517 S.W.2d 304, 308 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont no writ). I would reverse the void order, as has been done by the majority, and concur in the remand of the cause to the 317th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County for further proceedings.

  5. Caddell v. Gray

    544 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 10 times

    This is the case here. In such situation the appellate court has authority and jurisdiction over the void proceeding to declare its invalidity and to set it aside. Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823; Matlock v. Williams, CCA, NWH, 281 S.W.2d 229; Brady v. Fry, CCA, NWH, 517 S.W.2d 304; Travelers Express Company, Inc., v. Winters, CCA, NRE, 488 S.W.2d 890. Be we mistaken in the above, appellee can take little consolation, because where an order is interlocutory and not appealable, but is void, mandamus lies to the Court of Civil Appeals to require the trial court to set aside its void order.