in the Matter of Lawrence Adams

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 26, 2018
Docket01-18-00295-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in the Matter of Lawrence Adams (in the Matter of Lawrence Adams) 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
in the Matter of Lawrence Adams, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Opinion issued July 26, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00295-CV ——————————— IN THE MATTER OF LAWRENCE ADAMS, Appellant

On Appeal from the 313th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-32507

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Lawrence Adams, is attempting to appeal from the trial court’s

“Order of Transfer” that transferred the cause from one district court to another

district court.

Generally speaking, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over appeals from

final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). Texas

appellate courts only have jurisdiction to immediately consider appeals from

interlocutory orders if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v.

DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998).

The trial court’s “Order of Transfer” is neither a final judgment nor an

interlocutory order for which an appeal is authorized by statute and is therefore not

an appealable order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (West

Supp. 2017); Starnes v. Holloway, 779 S.W.2d 86, 93 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, writ

denied) (holding that order transferring case from one state court to another was

interlocutory order); Fox v. Wardy, 224 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005,

pet. denied) (same). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal,

appellant filed a response but did not demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction

over the appeal. Because appellant is attempting to appeal an interlocutory order

which is not authorized by statute, we lack jurisdiction over this attempted appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c); 43.2(f).

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.

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

Related

Fox v. Wardy
224 S.W.3d 307 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Starnes v. Holloway
779 S.W.2d 86 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
North East Independent School District v. Aldridge
400 S.W.2d 893 (Texas Supreme Court, 1966)
Stary v. DeBord
967 S.W.2d 352 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in the Matter of Lawrence Adams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-lawrence-adams-texapp-2018.