4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 6 (view source)
Revision as of 14:33, August 21, 2023
, August 21, 2023no edit summary
imported>Admin No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
* ''State ex rel. Mau v. Third Court of Appeals'', 560 S.W.3d 640, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3842426256762637212#p644 644] n.5 (Tex.Crim.App. 2018) ("The courts of appeals now have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against statutory county court judges, such as the judge in this case. ''See'' Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 740 [] (amending Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221(b)(1), to include judges of statutory county courts as among those against whom courts of appeals may issue writs of mandamus). When a court of appeals and this Court have concurrent original jurisdiction of a petition for writ of mandamus against the judge of a district or county court, the petition should be first presented to the court of appeals absent a compelling reason not to.") | * ''State ex rel. Mau v. Third Court of Appeals'', 560 S.W.3d 640, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3842426256762637212#p644 644] n.5 (Tex.Crim.App. 2018) ("The courts of appeals now have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against statutory county court judges, such as the judge in this case. ''See'' Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 740 [] (amending Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221(b)(1), to include judges of statutory county courts as among those against whom courts of appeals may issue writs of mandamus). When a court of appeals and this Court have concurrent original jurisdiction of a petition for writ of mandamus against the judge of a district or county court, the petition should be first presented to the court of appeals absent a compelling reason not to.") | ||
* ''Jeffery v. State'', 169 S.W.3d 439, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/8930428/Jeffery%20v.%20State,%20169%20S.W.3d%20439%20(2005).pdf#page=5 443] n.1 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2005, ref'd) ("The State cites several Fifth Circuit opinions for the proposition . . . . Although Fifth Circuit opinions, or those of any other federal or state court, may be relied on as persuasive authority, we are obligated to follow only higher Texas courts and the United States Supreme Court. ''See'' ''Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams'', 868 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tex. 1993); ''Thomas v. Miller'', 906 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex.App. | * ''Jeffery v. State'', 169 S.W.3d 439, [https://cite.case.law/pdf/8930428/Jeffery%20v.%20State,%20169%20S.W.3d%20439%20(2005).pdf#page=5 443] n.1 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 2005, ref'd) ("The State cites several Fifth Circuit opinions for the proposition . . . . Although Fifth Circuit opinions, or those of any other federal or state court, may be relied on as persuasive authority, we are obligated to follow only higher Texas courts and the United States Supreme Court. ''See'' ''Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams'', 868 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tex. 1993); ''Thomas v. Miller'', 906 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 1995, no pet.); ''Barstow v. State'', 742 S.W.2d 495, 500-01 & n.2 (Tex.App.–Austin 1987, pet. denied). In addition, the defense did present a prima facie case that the announcement was not sufficient.") | ||
* ''Padilla v. McDaniel'', 122 S.W.3d 805, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18340182796557549678#p807 807] (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (footnotes omitted) ("In 1983, shortly after . . . , an act of the legislature expanded their mandamus jurisdiction. It gave them general mandamus authority to enforce their jurisdictions, and general mandamus authority against district and county judges in their districts. This court held in 1987 that the 1983 act gave the courts of appeals mandamus jurisdiction in criminal law matters that is concurrent with this court's jurisdiction. Discretionary review of a court of appeals' decision to issue a writ of mandamus is not authorized, but this court may issue its writ of mandamus to overturn a court of appeals' mandamus decision.") | * ''Padilla v. McDaniel'', 122 S.W.3d 805, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18340182796557549678#p807 807] (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (footnotes omitted) ("In 1983, shortly after . . . , an act of the legislature expanded their mandamus jurisdiction. It gave them general mandamus authority to enforce their jurisdictions, and general mandamus authority against district and county judges in their districts. This court held in 1987 that the 1983 act gave the courts of appeals mandamus jurisdiction in criminal law matters that is concurrent with this court's jurisdiction. Discretionary review of a court of appeals' decision to issue a writ of mandamus is not authorized, but this court may issue its writ of mandamus to overturn a court of appeals' mandamus decision.") | ||