Ex parte M.B.

3 Citing cases

  1. Dixon v. Sanders

    No. 03-24-00140-CV (Tex. App. May. 24, 2024)

    See In re Marriage of Hernandez & McCreary, No. 12-17-00397-CV, 2018 WL 524864, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler Jan. 24, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Ex parte M.B., No. 02-17-00070-CV, 2017 WL 2805871, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  2. In re Marriage of Hernandez

    NO. 12-17-00397-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 24, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Neither the denial of a motion for bench warrant nor the denial of a request for the appointment of an attorney are appealable interlocutory orders or final judgments. See Ex parte M.B., No. 02-17-00070-CV, 2017 WL 2805871, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of denial of motion for bench warrant for want of jurisdiction); see also Read v. Verboski, No. 02-15-00153-CV, 2015 WL 3646093, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of denial of motion to appoint attorney for want of jurisdiction). Because the orders from which McCreary appeals are not appealable interlocutory orders, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

  3. In re M.B.

    NO. 02-17-00237-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 8, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Respondent timely denied that motion. Relator attempted to appeal that denial in this court, but this court dismissed his appeal for want of jurisdiction because that order is an unappealable interlocutory order. Ex parte M.B., No. 02-17-00070-CV, 2017 WL 2805871, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 29, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). While that appeal was still pending, Relator filed a noncompliant petition for writ of mandamus in this court; his compliant petition seeking mandamus relief in this court was filed July 17, 2017.