Allstate Insurance Company v. Fleming

Texas Supreme Court

Allstate Insurance Company v. Fleming

248 S.W.3d 166, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 231, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 1093, 2007 WL 4357597

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 14, 2007

Docket05-0645

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 S.W.3d 166 (Allstate Insurance Company v. Fleming) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allstate Insurance Company v. Fleming, 248 S.W.3d 166, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 231, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 1093, 2007 WL 4357597 (Tex. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.8d 618 (Tex.2007), we determined that Mid-Century Insurance Co. and others had properly charged insureds a Texas Automobile Theft Prevention Authority fee. Cevia Fleming and others raised the same issue in a suit against Allstate Insurance Company and several of its affiliates (Allstate, collectively). The trial court issued a partial summary judgment for Fleming, Allstate properly fried an interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and the court of appeals affirmed. 2005 WL 1536228 (TexApp.-Austin 2005) (mem.op.). Fleming argues that we should dismiss Allstate’s petition for review for want of jurisdiction. We need only address this jurisdictional argument.

In this context, the Legislature allows petitions for review from interlocutory appeals only when the court of appeals issued a dissenting opinion or when the court of appeals’ decision conflicted with a prior decision of this Court or of another court of appeals. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.225(c); State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 282 (Tex.2006). No dissenting opinion was filed in the court of appeals, and after reviewing the parties’ briefs and the relevant authorities, we do not find the requisite conflict. Accordingly, the order granting the petition for review is withdrawn as improvidently granted, and the petition for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

In Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.8d 618 (Tex.2007), we determined that Mid-Century Insurance Co. and others had properly charged insureds a Texas Automobile Theft Prevention Authority fee. Cevia Fleming and others raised the same issue in a suit against Allstate Insurance Company and several of its affiliates (Allstate, collectively). The trial court issued a partial summary judgment for Fleming, Allstate properly fried an interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and the court of appeals affirmed. 2005 WL 1536228 (TexApp.-Austin 2005) (mem.op.). Fleming argues that we should dismiss Allstate’s petition for review for want of jurisdiction. We need only address this jurisdictional argument.

In this context, the Legislature allows petitions for review from interlocutory appeals only when the court of appeals issued a dissenting opinion or when the court of appeals’ decision conflicted with a prior decision of this Court or of another court of appeals. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.225(c); State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 282 (Tex.2006). No dissenting opinion was filed in the court of appeals, and after reviewing the parties’ briefs and the relevant authorities, we do not find the requisite conflict. Accordingly, the order granting the petition for review is withdrawn as improvidently granted, and the petition for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.W.3d 166, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 231, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 1093, 2007 WL 4357597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-company-v-fleming-tex-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack