Summary
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the challenged order was not a final, appealable judgment because claims involving an intervenor remained pending, and the appellant did not identify a statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal. The court granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss.
Holdings
- An order is not final for purposes of appeal unless it disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties. Because claims and parties remained pending, the challenged order was not a final, appealable judgment.
- Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, the court of appeals has no jurisdiction over the appeal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the challenged summary-judgment order was a final, appealable judgment when claims and parties remained unresolved.
- Whether the court had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal absent identification of a statute authorizing review of the order.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (2)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001)(followed)
- Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 W.S.3d 316, 319 n. 1 (Tex. 2007)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…