Adumekwe Lambert v. Farb Realty LTD

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 4, 2005
Docket01-04-01055-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Adumekwe Lambert v. Farb Realty LTD (Adumekwe Lambert v. Farb Realty LTD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adumekwe Lambert v. Farb Realty LTD, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Opinion issued August 4, 2005





In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas





NO. 01–04–01055–CV





LAMBERT ADUMEKWE, Appellant


V.


FARB REALTY, LTD., Appellee





On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 820104





MEMORANDUM OPINION


          Pro se appellant, Lambert Adumekwe, sued appellee, Farb Realty, Ltd. (“Farb”), in small claims court for damages and a form of injunctive relief. Farb counter-claimed, seeking damages and attorney’s fees from Adumekwe. The small claims court entered judgment in favor of Farb. Adumekwe appealed to county court. Following a trial de novo, the county court judge signed a judgment in favor of Farb.

          In this appeal, Adumekwe challenges the county court’s judgment. We first must determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We raise this question, sua sponte, because it is our responsibility to take cognizance of this Court’s jurisdiction, or the lack thereof. Davis v. Covert, 983 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism’d w.o.j.).

          This and other appellate courts have held that a court of appeals has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a county court or county court at law after a de novo appeal from a small claims court. Davis, 983 S.W.2d at 302–03; see also Tumlinson v. Gutierrez, 55 S.W.3d 673, 674 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Oropeza v. Valdez, 53 S.W.3d 410, 411–12 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.); Woodlands Plumbing Co. v. Rodgers, 47 S.W.3d 146, 148–49 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied); Howell Aviation Servs. v. Aerial Ads, Inc., 29 S.W.3d 321, 322–24 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.). The statutory language of Texas Government Code section 28.053(d) is clear: a judgment rendered in the county court or county court at law is final in these types of cases. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 28.053(d) (Vernon 2004). As we recognized in Davis, the word “final” means there is no further appeal. Davis, 983 S.W.2d at 302. Because we have no appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.



                                                                        Laura Carter Higley

                                                                        Justice


Panel consists of Justices Taft, Alcala, and Higley.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Howell Aviation Services v. Aerial Ads, Inc.
29 S.W.3d 321 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Davis v. Covert
983 S.W.2d 301 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Woodlands Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Rodgers
47 S.W.3d 146 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Oropeza v. Valdez
53 S.W.3d 410 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Tumlinson v. Gutierrez
55 S.W.3d 673 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adumekwe Lambert v. Farb Realty LTD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adumekwe-lambert-v-farb-realty-ltd-texapp-2005.