Itz v. Kunz

Court of Appeals of Texas

Itz v. Kunz

511 S.W.2d 77

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 5, 1974

Docket15338

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 511 S.W.2d 77 (Itz v. Kunz) 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

Itz v. Kunz, 511 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has perfected his appeal from an order granting in part his motion under Rule 167, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, for appellee to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of certain documents and papers. Appellant’s suit for breach of implied warranty has not been tried and remains on the docket of the district court. We are met at the threshold by the question of whether we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from this interlocutory order.

Texas courts have steadfastly adhered to the rule, with certain exceptions not applicable here, that an appeal may be prosecuted only from a final judgment. North East Independent School District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.1966); Laurie v. Stabel, 482 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1972, no writ); Hatten v. City of Houston, 373 S.W.2d 525, 534 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1963, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Knox v. Long, 228 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1950, writ ref’d); Appellate Procedure in Texas, Section 2.5(1).

There is nothing in Rule 167, as amended in 1972, which would authorize a direct appeal. However, appellant is not without a remedy. See Crane v. Tunks, 160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434 (1959).

We do not have jurisdiction to consider at this time an appeal from this interlocutory order. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has perfected his appeal from an order granting in part his motion under Rule 167, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, for appellee to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of certain documents and papers. Appellant’s suit for breach of implied warranty has not been tried and remains on the docket of the district court. We are met at the threshold by the question of whether we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from this interlocutory order.

Texas courts have steadfastly adhered to the rule, with certain exceptions not applicable here, that an appeal may be prosecuted only from a final judgment. North East Independent School District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.1966); Laurie v. Stabel, 482 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1972, no writ); Hatten v. City of Houston, 373 S.W.2d 525, 534 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1963, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Knox v. Long, 228 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1950, writ ref’d); Appellate Procedure in Texas, Section 2.5(1).

There is nothing in Rule 167, as amended in 1972, which would authorize a direct appeal. However, appellant is not without a remedy. See Crane v. Tunks, 160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434 (1959).

We do not have jurisdiction to consider at this time an appeal from this interlocutory order. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 S.W.2d 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/itz-v-kunz-texapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack