Cornelius Hudson v. Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cornelius Hudson v. Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided September 27, 2012·No. 02-12-00311-CV·Published

Opinion

02-12-311-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00311-CV

Cornelius Hudson		APPELLANT
V.
Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant		APPELLEES

----------

FROM County Court at Law No. 1 OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

Cornelius Hudson, pro se, attempts to appeal from a contempt judgment. On August 22, 2012, we notified Hudson of our concern that we might not have jurisdiction over this appeal because contempt judgments generally are not appealable. See Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 n.1 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding); In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) (“A contempt judgment may be attacked by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved) . . .; however, because a contempt order is not a final judgment, a remedy by appeal does not lie.”) (citation omitted). We stated that unless Hudson or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before September 4, 2012, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Hudson filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing this appeal.

Because the contempt judgment at issue is not a final judgment, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 27, 2012

Cornelius Hudson

Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2010-081635-1)

September 27, 2012

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

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

02-12-311-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00311-CV

Cornelius Hudson		APPELLANT
V.
Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant		APPELLEES

----------

FROM County Court at Law No. 1 OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

Cornelius Hudson, pro se, attempts to appeal from a contempt judgment. On August 22, 2012, we notified Hudson of our concern that we might not have jurisdiction over this appeal because contempt judgments generally are not appealable. See Ex parte Williams, 690 S.W.2d 243, 243 n.1 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding); In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) (“A contempt judgment may be attacked by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved) . . .; however, because a contempt order is not a final judgment, a remedy by appeal does not lie.”) (citation omitted). We stated that unless Hudson or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before September 4, 2012, this appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Hudson filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing this appeal.

Because the contempt judgment at issue is not a final judgment, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 27, 2012

Cornelius Hudson

Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2010-081635-1)

September 27, 2012

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

Cornelius Hudson v. Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Cornelius Hudson v. Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant (Cornelius Hudson v. Major Joe E. and Shirley Bryant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related