Harold Taylor v. Page Southerland Page, L.L.P.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 28, 2006
Docket13-06-00603-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Harold Taylor v. Page Southerland Page, L.L.P. (Harold Taylor v. Page Southerland Page, L.L.P.) 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
Harold Taylor v. Page Southerland Page, L.L.P., (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-06-603-CV



COURT OF APPEALS



THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_________________________________________________________



HAROLD TAYLOR, Appellant,



v.


PAGE SOUTHERLAND PAGE, L.L.P., Appellee.



On appeal from the 138th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas


MEMORANDUM OPINION



Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam



This is an attempted appeal from an order granting an interlocutory motion for summary judgment signed August 15, 2006. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 13, 2006.

On October 23, 2006, appellant filed a motion to stay, abate, withdraw, and/or dismiss the appeal, asserting that the underlying summary judgment is not final. According to appellant, the summary judgment order did not dispose of all issues and all claims involving all parties to the lawsuit, nor did it purport to be a final judgment. Appellee has not filed a response to appellant's motion.

Absent a statutory source of authority to review an interlocutory order, our appellate jurisdiction is limited to final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all parties and claims pending in the case, or if it states with "unmistakable clarity" that it is a final judgment as to all claims and parties. Id. at 192-93. If the record does not affirmatively demonstrate our jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. Southwest Invs. Diversified, Inc. v. Estate of Mieszkuc, 171 S.W.3d 461, 467 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).

Based on our review of appellant's motion, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, appellant's motion is granted as specified herein, and the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM



Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 28th day of December, 2006.



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

Related

Southwest Investments Diversified, Inc. v. Estate of Mieszkuc
171 S.W.3d 461 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Harold Taylor v. Page Southerland Page, L.L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-taylor-v-page-southerland-page-llp-texapp-2006.