Third Court of Appeals dismisses interlocutory appeal of temporary injunction after entry of final order granting permanent injunction.
Walter Lee Hall, Jr.; KWI Legal Defense Fund; and KWI Communications LLC d/b/a KWI Hold,
No.03-07-00465-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Dec. 13, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Puryear )(temporary injuction interlocutory appeal) (Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton)
Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County
Disposition: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction (DWOJ)
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-GN-07-001548, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellants filed an appeal from the trial court's granting of a temporary injunction in favor of appellee. Appellee has since filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, attaching a copy of a final judgment signed by the trial court on September 14, 2007, imposing a permanent injunction against appellants and terminating the temporary injunction at issue in this appeal. The supreme court has held that "[i]f, while on the appeal of the granting or denying of the temporary injunction, the trial court renders final judgment, the case on appeal becomes moot. When a case becomes moot on appeal, all previous orders pertaining to the temporary injunction are set aside by the appellate court and the case is dismissed." Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield, 802 SW2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991) (citations omitted).
We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: December 13, 2007
Showing posts with label Puryear dismissals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Puryear dismissals. Show all posts
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Appellee's Sanctions Request Denied - Dismissal Granted
Jose Fernandez Galan Palau v. Flor De Maria Navarro Sanchez, No. 03-07-00499-CV (Tex.App.- Austin, Nov. 16, 2007) (Opinion by Justice Puryear)(opposed motion to dismiss by appllant, sanctions to appellee denied)(Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton)
Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-06-002234, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, stating that the trial court's later ruling rendered the appeal moot. Appellee, who earlier filed a motion seeking to have the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, has filed a motion opposing the dismissal of the appeal until we assess sanctions against appellant. We overrule appellee's motion for sanctions, but will assess all costs on appeal against appellant. We grant appellant's motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). We further grant Susan Norman's emergency motion to withdraw as appellant's counsel, leaving appellant's additional retained attorney, Andres P. Chaumont, as counsel.
___________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: November 16, 2007
Appeal from 353rd District Court of Travis County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-FM-06-002234, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, stating that the trial court's later ruling rendered the appeal moot. Appellee, who earlier filed a motion seeking to have the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction, has filed a motion opposing the dismissal of the appeal until we assess sanctions against appellant. We overrule appellee's motion for sanctions, but will assess all costs on appeal against appellant. We grant appellant's motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). We further grant Susan Norman's emergency motion to withdraw as appellant's counsel, leaving appellant's additional retained attorney, Andres P. Chaumont, as counsel.
___________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton
Dismissed on Appellant's Motion
Filed: November 16, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
DWOP - In the Interest of L. M. H., No. 03-07-00298-CV(Tex App.- Austin Oct. 3, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Puryear (Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton)
Appeal from 169th District Court of Bell County
Appeal from 169th District Court of Bell County
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 220,516-C, HONORABLE MICHAEL J. NELSON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 8, 2007. The clerk's record was filed on May 16. On August 20, 2007, the Clerk of this Court sent appellant notice that his brief was overdue and informed him that unless he filed a motion for an extension of time by August 31, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant has not responded to this or other communications from this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear, and Pemberton
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: October 3, 2007
NO. 220,516-C, HONORABLE MICHAEL J. NELSON, JUDGE PRESIDING
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant filed his notice of appeal on May 8, 2007. The clerk's record was filed on May 16. On August 20, 2007, the Clerk of this Court sent appellant notice that his brief was overdue and informed him that unless he filed a motion for an extension of time by August 31, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant has not responded to this or other communications from this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Patterson, Puryear, and Pemberton
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: October 3, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Kim v. Austin Community College (Tex.App.- Austin, Jul. 6, 2007)
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
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
Thursday, 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)