Order Granting Motion for Continuance Not Final and Not Appealable
Koo-Hyun Kim vs. Austin Comm'ty College (Tex. App.- Austin, July 6, 2007)(Puryear)(unauthorized interlocutory appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, DWOJ)
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION: Opinion by Justice Puryear
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
03-07-00320-CV
John Koo-Hyun Kim v. Austin Community College; Stephen B. Kinslow, as President of Austin Community College; Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas; Representative Jaime Valdez; and Myra McDaniel, as Attorney for Austin Community College
Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-07-000586, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant John Koo-Hyun Kim filed a notice of appeal, apparently seeking to appeal from the trial court's order granting appellees' motions for a continuance of a June 4, 2007 trial setting. Because we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Generally, courts of appeals may only exercise jurisdiction over appeals from final orders or judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) ("A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree."). There are certain statutory exceptions to this rule, which explicitly allow interlocutory appeals from non-final orders. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2006) (listing permissible interlocutory appeals).
An appeal from a trial court's granting of a motion for continuance and delay of a trial setting may not be reviewed by interlocutory appeal. See In re A.J.L., No. 02-04-00050-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4993, at *1 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth, June 3, 2004, no pet) (mem. op.); Lovall v. Yen, No. 14-01-01108-CV, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 354, at *1-3 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 17, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court's order granting a continuance to appellees. We may not consider this complaint in an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, we must dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 6, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Hansen v. Hansen (Tex.App.- Austin, Jul. 5, 2007)
Hansen vs. Hansen (Tex. App.- Austin, July 5, 2007)(Waldrop)(dismissed per agreement to settle)
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Justice Waldrop
Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop
03-07-00112-CV
David Henry Hansen v. Terry Ann Hansen
Appeal from 21st District Court of Bastrop County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 10,978, HONORABLE H. R. TOWSLEE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
David Henry Hansen has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that he and Terry Ann Hansen have entered into an agreement under which all matters in controversy between the parties have been fully settled and compromised. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: July 5, 2007
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Justice Waldrop
Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop
03-07-00112-CV
David Henry Hansen v. Terry Ann Hansen
Appeal from 21st District Court of Bastrop County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 10,978, HONORABLE H. R. TOWSLEE, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
David Henry Hansen has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that he and Terry Ann Hansen have entered into an agreement under which all matters in controversy between the parties have been fully settled and compromised. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.
G. Alan Waldrop, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: July 5, 2007
Kim v. United Central Bank (Tex.App.- Austin, Jul. 5, 2007)
Kim vs. United Central Bank (Tex. App.- Austin, July 5, 2007)(Puryear)(DWOJ, ILA, no interlocutory jurisdiction over order on motion to transfer venue)
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION: Opinion by Justice Puryear
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
03-07-00223-CV
John Koo Hyun Kim v. United Central Bank and Texas Department of Banking
Appeal from 250th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-004538, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant John Koo Hyun Kim filed a notice of appeal, seeking to appeal from the trial court's order granting appellee United Central Bank's motion to transfer venue. We have reviewed the clerk's record filed in this cause and because we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Generally, courts of appeals may exercise jurisdiction of appeals from final orders or judgments only. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) ("A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree."). There are certain statutory exceptions to this rule, which explicitly provide for an interlocutory appeal from a non-final order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2006) (listing permissible interlocutory appeals). An appeal from a trial court's venue determination may not be reviewed by interlocutory appeal. Id. § 15.064(a) (West 2002) (no interlocutory appeal from trial court's determination of venue); Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Pioneer Elecs. (USA) Inc., 68 S.W.3d 254, 257 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).
Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order transferring venue from Travis County to Dallas County. We may not consider this complaint in an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, we must dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 5, 2007
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION: Opinion by Justice Puryear
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
03-07-00223-CV
John Koo Hyun Kim v. United Central Bank and Texas Department of Banking
Appeal from 250th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-06-004538, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant John Koo Hyun Kim filed a notice of appeal, seeking to appeal from the trial court's order granting appellee United Central Bank's motion to transfer venue. We have reviewed the clerk's record filed in this cause and because we lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Generally, courts of appeals may exercise jurisdiction of appeals from final orders or judgments only. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) ("A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree."). There are certain statutory exceptions to this rule, which explicitly provide for an interlocutory appeal from a non-final order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2006) (listing permissible interlocutory appeals). An appeal from a trial court's venue determination may not be reviewed by interlocutory appeal. Id. § 15.064(a) (West 2002) (no interlocutory appeal from trial court's determination of venue); Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Pioneer Elecs. (USA) Inc., 68 S.W.3d 254, 257 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).
Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order transferring venue from Travis County to Dallas County. We may not consider this complaint in an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, we must dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 5, 2007
Terry v. Sargent (Tex.App- Austin, Jul. 3, 2007)
Terry v. Sargent (Tex.App- Austin, Jul. 3, 2007)(Henson)(DWOP)
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION: Opinion by Justice Henson
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson)
03-07-00096-CV
Thomas Terry, Jr. and derivatively Cardiac Services of Texas, Inc. and Cardiac Services of Austin, L.P. v. Darrell Sargent; Cardiac Products of Texas, Inc.; Cardiostaff Corporation; and Larry Lawson
Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GN304065, HONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on February 7, 2007; the notice was filed in this Court on February 9. On March 20, this Court received a letter from the office of the Travis County District Clerk notifying us that appellants had not made payment for the clerk's record. On April 9, this Court sent appellants a letter requesting a status report regarding the appeal by April 19 and warning that failure to comply with the request would result in dismissal for want of prosecution. Appellants have made no response to the letter. On May 21, 2007, the office of the district clerk informed this Court that appellants still have not made arrangements to pay for the clerk's record. On June 26, 2007, the office of the district clerk again informed this Court that arrangements for payment still have not been made. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
_____________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: July 3, 2007
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION: Opinion by Justice Henson
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson)
03-07-00096-CV
Thomas Terry, Jr. and derivatively Cardiac Services of Texas, Inc. and Cardiac Services of Austin, L.P. v. Darrell Sargent; Cardiac Products of Texas, Inc.; Cardiostaff Corporation; and Larry Lawson
Appeal from 98th District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. GN304065, HONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on February 7, 2007; the notice was filed in this Court on February 9. On March 20, this Court received a letter from the office of the Travis County District Clerk notifying us that appellants had not made payment for the clerk's record. On April 9, this Court sent appellants a letter requesting a status report regarding the appeal by April 19 and warning that failure to comply with the request would result in dismissal for want of prosecution. Appellants have made no response to the letter. On May 21, 2007, the office of the district clerk informed this Court that appellants still have not made arrangements to pay for the clerk's record. On June 26, 2007, the office of the district clerk again informed this Court that arrangements for payment still have not been made. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
_____________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: July 3, 2007
Geissler v. First American Title Inc. Co. (Tex.App.- Austin, Jul. 7, 2007)
Geissler v. First American Title Inc. Co. (Tex.App.- Austin, Jul. 7, 2007)(Henson)(dismissed on appellants' motion)
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Justice Henson
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson)
03-06-00802-CV
Frederick K. Geissler and Mary E. Geissler v. First American Title Insurance Company
Appeal from 201st District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-05-004234, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants Frederick K. Geissler and Mary E. Geissler filed a motion requesting that their appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
_________________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed on Appellants' Motion
Filed: July 3, 2007
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT'S MOTION: Opinion by Justice Henson
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson)
03-06-00802-CV
Frederick K. Geissler and Mary E. Geissler v. First American Title Insurance Company
Appeal from 201st District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-05-004234, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants Frederick K. Geissler and Mary E. Geissler filed a motion requesting that their appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
_________________________________________
Diane Henson, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson
Dismissed on Appellants' Motion
Filed: July 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)