law-writ-of-prohibition | writ of mandamus |
WRIT OF PROHIBITION
A writ of prohibition in an appellate court is a limited purpose remedy. In re
Lewis, 223 S.W.3d 756, 761 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, orig. proceeding). The writ is
used to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit an unlawful interference with
enforcement of a superior court’s judgment. See Sivley v. Sivley, 972 S.W.2d 850, 863
(Tex. App.—Tyler 1998, orig. proceeding) (combined appeal and original proceeding).
The writ is also functions or has the same effect as an injunction issued by a superior
court to control, limit, or prevent action in a court of inferior jurisdiction. Holloway v.
Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tex. 1989). Prohibition is not appropriate
if any other remedy, such as appeal, is available and adequate. In re Castle Tex. Prod.
Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 404 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding). Similarly,
the purpose of a writ of injunction is to enforce or protect the appellate court’s
jurisdiction. Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 683.
Issuance of a writ of prohibition or writ of injunction to protect this court’s
judgment would not afford relator the relief he seeks because the judgment does not
address the pending suit on the parties’ separate agreement. Further, this court does not
have jurisdiction to issue either writ against the Harris County District Clerk. See Tex.
Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221.
HOUSTON CASE LAW ON WRIT OF PROHIBITION
A writ of prohibition is used to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit an unlawful interference with
enforcement of a superior court's order and judgments. Sivley v. Sivley, 972 S.W.2d 850, 863-64 (Tex. App.--Tyler
1998, orig. proceeding). The writ is designed to operate like an injunction issued by a superior court to control,
limit, or prevent action in a court of inferior jurisdiction. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 682
(Tex. 1989). The same principles control both a writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus when used to correct the
unlawful assumption of jurisdiction by an inferior court. Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 676 n. 4 (Tex. 1996).
. A trial court may not enter an order that interferes with our jurisdiction after an appeal has been perfected.
See Bridas Corp. v. Unocal Corp., 16 S.W.3d 887, 889 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.)
(holding that trial court possessed jurisdiction to issue anti-injunction relief following perfection of appeal because
the trial court’s order did not undermine or interfere with appellate court jurisdiction or modify the final judgment).
The trial court’s action on the pending motion will not moot our appeal or otherwise destroy or interfere with our
jurisdiction over the appeal.
In addition, the trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgment and to rule on post-judgment discovery as
long as the judgment has not been superseded. Tex. R. Civ. P. 621a. The trial court may determine if the amount
of security is sufficient to supersede the judgment, and relators may seek review of the trial court’s ruling
concerning the amount of security required by filing a motion in the appeal. See In re Smith, 192 S.W.3d 564 (Tex.
2006) (reviewing trial court orders setting aside cash deposits in lieu of supersedeas bond); Tex. R. App. P. 24.4.
In re Tindall (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 4, 2010)(per curiam denial of writ of prohibition)
MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Per Curiam
14-10-00093-CV In Re Marion H. Tindall, individually and d/b/a Cottage School System, Inc.
and Cottage School System, Inc.
Appeal from 125th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Kyle Carter
Relators have not established that they are entitled to extraordinary relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition
for writ of prohibition and emergency motion for temporary relief.
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE