James Carlan A/K/A James Taylor v. Jo Gutheridge Stokes

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 29, 2009
Docket14-08-00943-CV
StatusPublished

This text of James Carlan A/K/A James Taylor v. Jo Gutheridge Stokes (James Carlan A/K/A James Taylor v. Jo Gutheridge Stokes) 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
James Carlan A/K/A James Taylor v. Jo Gutheridge Stokes, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 29, 2009

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 29, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00943-CV

JAMES CARLAN a/k/a JAMES TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

JO GUTHERIDGE STOKES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris  County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No.  2008-45464

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

Appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order signed September 5, 2008, sustaining a contest to his pauper=s oath.  According to the notice of appeal, no final judgment has been entered in this case, and appellant is attempting to appeal the denial of pauper status for pending divorce action.


Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments.  Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute.  Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

There is no statute providing for an interlocutory appeal of the court=s ruling on indigency for trial proceedings.  Lomax v. Thomas, No. 14-08-00163-CV, 2008 WL 4308610, *1 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] Aug. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).  Thus, an order denying indigent status may not be appealed before entry of final judgment.  In contrast, a trial court=s indigency ruling pertaining to an already pending appeal is appealable.  See In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737, 738‑39 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). 

On December 15, 2008, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before December 29, 2008.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  No response has been filed.

We are without jurisdiction over this appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Seymore. 

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

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson
53 S.W.3d 352 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
In Re Arroyo
988 S.W.2d 737 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps
842 S.W.2d 266 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James Carlan A/K/A James Taylor v. Jo Gutheridge Stokes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-carlan-aka-james-taylor-v-jo-gutheridge-stokes-texapp-2009.