Elton Adamcek, Etal. v. Reynolds Metals Co.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 16, 2006
Docket13-05-00720-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Elton Adamcek, Etal. v. Reynolds Metals Co. (Elton Adamcek, Etal. v. Reynolds Metals Co.) 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
Elton Adamcek, Etal. v. Reynolds Metals Co., (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-05-720-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

ELTON ADAMCEK, ET AL.,                                       Appellants,

                                           v.

REYNOLDS METALS CO., ET AL.,                              Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

                  On appeal from the 23rd  District Court

                           of Wharton County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


Appellants, ELTON ADAMCEK, ET AL., attempted to perfect an appeal from a purported order entered by the 23rd District Court of Wharton County, Texas, in cause number 37,761.  After the notice of appeal was received, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.  In the motion, appellees state that the matter which appellants are attempting to appeal is not an order, is clearly not a final judgment and is not appealable as a matter of law.  Appellees request that this Court dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file, appellees= motion to dismiss the appeal, and appellants= response thereto, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.  Appellees= motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 16th day of March, 2006.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Elton Adamcek, Etal. v. Reynolds Metals Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elton-adamcek-etal-v-reynolds-metals-co-texapp-2006.