Bryce Elliott v. Andrew R. Davis and Carrie Michele Cannon-Davis

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bryce Elliott v. Andrew R. Davis and Carrie Michele Cannon-Davis

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 22, 2023·No. 01-21-00673-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 22, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (“A statement like, ‘This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable,’ would leave no doubt about the court’s intention.”).

This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011). “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.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. An order may not constitute a final judgment for these purposes if it fails to resolve a request for attorney’s fees. E.g., Farm Bureau Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 162 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam).

We notified appellant that the appeal could be dismissed if the appellant did not timely file a response demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond.1

1 Counsel for appellee Andrew R. Davis responded with a suggestion of death of Robert Sobel, the attorney representing appellee Carrie Michele Cannon-Davis.

Counsel for Bryce Elliott, the only party who filed a notice of appeal, did not respond.

Conclusion

Because the appealed judgment is not final, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Peter Kelly

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Farris, and Radack.2

2 The Honorable Sherry Radack, Senior Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, sitting by assignment.

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

Opinion issued June 22, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (“A statement like, ‘This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable,’ would leave no doubt about the court’s intention.”).

This Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and those interlocutory orders specifically authorized by statute. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011). “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.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. An order may not constitute a final judgment for these purposes if it fails to resolve a request for attorney’s fees. E.g., Farm Bureau Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161, 162 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam).

We notified appellant that the appeal could be dismissed if the appellant did not timely file a response demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond.1

1 Counsel for appellee Andrew R. Davis responded with a suggestion of death of Robert Sobel, the attorney representing appellee Carrie Michele Cannon-Davis.

Counsel for Bryce Elliott, the only party who filed a notice of appeal, did not respond.

Conclusion

Because the appealed judgment is not final, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Peter Kelly

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Farris, and Radack.2

2 The Honorable Sherry Radack, Senior Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, sitting by assignment.

Bryce Elliott v. Andrew R. Davis and Carrie Michele Cannon-Davis, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Bryce Elliott v. Andrew R. Davis and Carrie Michele Cannon-Davis (Bryce Elliott v. Andrew R. Davis and Carrie Michele Cannon-Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related