Garcia v. Garcia

4 Citing cases

  1. Collins v. Kegans

    802 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that it is "axiomatic" that a judgment of contempt can be reviewed only by habeas corpus

    Indeed, it is axiomatic that mandamus will not issue during the pendency of contempt proceedings and that the validity of a contempt judgment can be attacked "only by way of habeas corpus." Deramus v. Thornton, 160 Tex. 494, 333 S.W.2d 824, 827 (1960); Ex parte Arapis, 157 Tex. 627, 306 S.W.2d 884, 887 (1957); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 295 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1956); The State v. Thurmond, 37 Tex. 340, 341 (1872); Tims v. Tims, 204 S.W.2d 995 (Tex.App. — Amarillo, 1947, writ ref'd); Dallas County by Commissioners Court v. Mays, 747 S.W.2d 842, 845 (Tex.App. — Dallas) reversed for other reasons sub nom, Mays v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 755 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. 1988); Jackson v. Crawford, 727 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1987, no writ); Haskett v. Harris 567 S.W.2d 841, 845 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1978, no writ); Doss v. Doss, 521 S.W.2d 709, 711 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, no writ); Garcia v. Garcia, 469 S.W.2d 920, 921 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1971, no writ); Ex parte Henderson, 300 S.W.2d 189, 190 (Tex.App — Beaumont 1957, no writ). See also Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243 n. 1 (Tex. 1985).

  2. Richey v. Bolerjack

    581 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    If, by a liberal construction, the order should be held to be a judgment of contempt, this court would have no jurisdiction because of the well settled rule that the validity of a contempt order may be attacked only by a writ of habeas corpus. Wagner v. Warnasch, supra; Garcia v. Garcia, 469 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1971, no writ history); 12 Tex.Jur.2d Contempt, sec. 59. Although appellant has brought an additional point of error challenging the judgment on other grounds, since no final appealable judgment was rendered by the trial court, this point cannot be considered in this proceeding.

  3. Cine-Matics Inc. v. State

    578 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    For this reason, the long-standing rule forbidding a direct appeal from an order of contempt has been questioned. See Doss v. Doss, 521 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Civ.App. 1975, no writ); Garcia v. Garcia, 469 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Civ.App. 1971, no writ) (concurring opinion). The Texas Supreme Court has indicated that the traditional rules surrounding review of contempt proceedings might not be followed under certain circumstances.

  4. Stephens v. Stephens

    543 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    The contempt order merely provides for a means of discharging payment of the amount which was found by the court to be the sum of the arrearages. See Garcia v. Garcia, 469 S.W.2d 920, 921 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1971, no writ). Under the provisions of Section 14.09(c), Texas Family Code, support orders may be enforced either by contempt or by judgment for the amount of the delinquent payments.