Hart v. Hart
This text of 679 S.W.2d 80 (Hart v. Hart) 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.
Opinion
Harry Hart appeals the trial court’s ruling on three motions to strike pleadings. In this Court Rachel Hart has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the trial court’s orders are interlocutory, thus unap-pealable, orders. We grant the motion and dismiss.
On May 14, 1984, the trial court overruled a motion to strike the pleadings and dismiss the action of a third party intervenor. We lack jurisdiction to review an order granting intervention because it is an unappealable interlocutory order. Southwestern Bell, Etc. v. Public Util., Etc., 615 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin), aff'd, on other grounds, 622 S.W.2d 82 (Tex.1981); Tex.R.Civ.P. 60.
The trial court also overruled two motions to strike Rachel Hart’s first amended answer and cross-claim. An order overruling a motion to strike a pleading is also an unappealable interlocutory order. Cantrell v. City of Dallas, 350 S.W.2d 358 (Tex.Civ.App.;—Dallas 1961, no writ); see also 4 Tex.Jur. 3d. Appellate Review § 74 (1980); Annot., 1 A.L.R.2d 422 (1948).
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
679 S.W.2d 80, 1984 Tex. App. LEXIS 5930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-hart-texapp-1984.