In re Doe
397 S.W.3d 847
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Doe did not file a mandamus petition separately from the appeal, and the court did not address mandamus as the chosen remedy
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the denial of enforcement of the expunction order appealable? | Doe argues the order is appealable as a post-judgment enforcement ruling | Gossage/State contends the order is not a final or appealable post-judgment order | Not appealable; lack of jurisdiction |
| Is mandamus a proper alternative remedy here? | Not raised; Doe did not seek mandamus | Mandamus not addressed due to lack of jurisdiction | Not addressed; mandamus not invoked in this proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. 1990) (courts have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction)
- McCauley v. Consol. Underwriters, 157 Tex. 475, 804 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. 1957) (jurisdictional review of appeals limited to final or statutorily authorized appeals)
- Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2007) (controls on jurisdiction over appeals and mandamus)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex.2001) (general rule: appeals from final judgments; post-judgment orders often not appealable)
- Wagner v. Warnasch, 295 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.1956) (post-judgment enforcement orders typically not appealable unless final/injunctive-like)
- Berdan v. State, 335 S.W.3d 421 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2011) (post-judgment enforcement orders generally not appealable)
- Schultz v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 810 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.1991) (turnover or enforcement orders not appealable absent finality or mandatory-injunction character)
- In re Amaya, 34 S.W.3d 354 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001) (orig. proceeding; mandamus as alternative in enforcement context)