E.W. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Court of Appeals of Texas

E.W. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 14, 2012·No. 01-11-00962-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 14, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-11-00962-CV

———————————

EUGENE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

department of family and Protective services, Appellee

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-02311J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Eugene Williams, appeals from the trial court’s October 13, 2011 decree terminating his parental rights and appointing appellee, Department of Family and Protective Services, the sole managing conservator of appellant’s minor children, R.W., C.W., and F.W. Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the basis that a new trial has been granted.

We dismiss.

The clerk’s record reflects that appellant filed a motion for new trial on October 28, 2011, which the trial court granted on November 17, 2011. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d), (e); Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex. 1995). When a motion for new trial is granted, the case is reinstated upon the docket of the trial court and will stand for trial the same as though no trial had been had. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005). Thus, when the trial court grants a motion for new trial, the trial court “essentially wipes the slate clean and starts over.” Id. Therefore, the issues presented in this appeal are rendered moot, and this Court lacks jurisdiction.

On May 4, 2012, we notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. On May 10, 2012, appellant responded with a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that a motion for new trial was granted.

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.

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

Opinion issued June 14, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-11-00962-CV

———————————

EUGENE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

department of family and Protective services, Appellee

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-02311J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Eugene Williams, appeals from the trial court’s October 13, 2011 decree terminating his parental rights and appointing appellee, Department of Family and Protective Services, the sole managing conservator of appellant’s minor children, R.W., C.W., and F.W. Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the basis that a new trial has been granted.

We dismiss.

The clerk’s record reflects that appellant filed a motion for new trial on October 28, 2011, which the trial court granted on November 17, 2011. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d), (e); Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex. 1995). When a motion for new trial is granted, the case is reinstated upon the docket of the trial court and will stand for trial the same as though no trial had been had. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005). Thus, when the trial court grants a motion for new trial, the trial court “essentially wipes the slate clean and starts over.” Id. Therefore, the issues presented in this appeal are rendered moot, and this Court lacks jurisdiction.

On May 4, 2012, we notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. On May 10, 2012, appellant responded with a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that a motion for new trial was granted.

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.

E.W. v. Department of Family and Protective Services, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

E.W. v. Department of Family and Protective Services (E.W. v. Department of Family and Protective Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related