Opinion issued November 23, 2004
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-04-01069-CV
____________
IN RE JULIE ANN HOBBS, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION
The mandamus record presented to this Court challenges the trial judge’s denial of relator’s plea to the trial judge’s exercise of subject-matter jurisdiction over an original petition affecting the parent-child relationship and entering temporary orders pertaining to T.L.H., a child. Except in instances that do not apply here, a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction is a question of law that is reviewable by ordinary appeal under the de novo standard of review. Tex. Dep’t. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). Mandamus properly issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate legal remedy. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). That a party must have no other adequate remedy at law is a “fundamental tenet” of mandamus practice. In re State Bar of Texas, 113 S.W.3d 730, 734 (Tex. 2003) (quoting Walker, 827 S.W.2d. at 839). The denial of a plea to the jurisdiction, which relator challenges here, is an incidental ruling and not subject to review by mandamus because the relator has an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal. See id.; see also Miranda, 134 S.W.3d at 226 (stating standard of review for appeal challenging ruling on plea to jurisdiction).
Because relator has an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal, I concur in denying the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
Evelyn V. Keyes
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Alcala.