In re Kimberly Ann Smith, Relator (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-22-00282-CV ________________________ IN RE KIMBERLY ANN SMITH, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS November 17, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. In this original proceeding, relator Kimberly Ann Smith complains of this Court’s affirmance of the trial court’s judgment in Smith v. Dixon, No. 07-20-00197-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5592 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 14, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We will deny her petition for writ of mandamus. While appellate review is a matter of right, mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the discretion of the court.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). It is a means for correcting blatant injustice that will otherwise escape appellate review. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 374 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). A relator seeking relief by mandamus has the burden of establishing the trial court clearly abused its discretion and she has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135-36. “An appellate remedy is ‘adequate’ when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.” Id. at 136. In the matter before us, Smith had an adequate remedy by appeal to complain of the trial court’s judgment in favor of Andrew G. Dixon and Lauren M. Dixon. Indeed, she appealed that judgment and this Court affirmed it. See Smith, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5592, at *7. The Supreme Court denied her petition for review. See Smith v. Dixon, No. 21-0892, 2022 Tex. LEXIS 628, at *1 (Tex. 2022). As such, her complaints have been thoroughly reviewed. She is not entitled to mandamus relief now. Further, Smith brings to our attention no other order or judgment about which she seeks action by this Court through her petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. We deny Smith’s petition for writ of mandamus. Brian Quinn Chief Justice 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.