Charles Ray Mason v. Arthur J. Wood, Gary E. Hunter, Brenda Spitaleri, Patricia A. Strobl, Marcial J. Foisie Jr., Bridgette D. Charlie, Ramona E. Jordan, and Cynthia Wood

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 16, 2020
Docket09-19-00434-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Charles Ray Mason v. Arthur J. Wood, Gary E. Hunter, Brenda Spitaleri, Patricia A. Strobl, Marcial J. Foisie Jr., Bridgette D. Charlie, Ramona E. Jordan, and Cynthia Wood (Charles Ray Mason v. Arthur J. Wood, Gary E. Hunter, Brenda Spitaleri, Patricia A. Strobl, Marcial J. Foisie Jr., Bridgette D. Charlie, Ramona E. Jordan, and Cynthia Wood) 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
Charles Ray Mason v. Arthur J. Wood, Gary E. Hunter, Brenda Spitaleri, Patricia A. Strobl, Marcial J. Foisie Jr., Bridgette D. Charlie, Ramona E. Jordan, and Cynthia Wood, (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00434-CV __________________

CHARLES RAY MASON, Appellant

V.

ARTHUR J. WOOD, GARY E. HUNTER, BRENDA SPITALERI, PATRICIA A. STROBL, MARCIAL J. FOISIE JR., BRIDGETTE D. CHARLIE, RAMONA E. JORDAN, AND CYNTHIA WOOD, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CIV24101 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charles Ray Mason filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order

denying his motion for entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc. We questioned our

jurisdiction and notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction unless we received a response establishing our jurisdiction. Mason filed

a response, but he failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction. 1 This Court’s appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments

and such interlocutory orders as the legislature has deemed appealable. See Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014; Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad, 783

S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (holding that the denial of a motion for judgment nunc

pro tunc is not a final, appealable order); North East Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge,

400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966) (holding that appeal ordinarily may be taken only

from a final judgment). The trial court’s order denying Mason’s motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc is not a final, appealable order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014; Shadowbrook Apartments, 783 S.W.2d at 211. Accordingly, we dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 15, 2020 Opinion Delivered January 16, 2020

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

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

Related

Shadowbrook Apartments v. Abu-Ahmad
783 S.W.2d 210 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
North East Independent School District v. Aldridge
400 S.W.2d 893 (Texas Supreme Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charles Ray Mason v. Arthur J. Wood, Gary E. Hunter, Brenda Spitaleri, Patricia A. Strobl, Marcial J. Foisie Jr., Bridgette D. Charlie, Ramona E. Jordan, and Cynthia Wood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-ray-mason-v-arthur-j-wood-gary-e-hunter-brenda-spitaleri-texapp-2020.