Jesus Rodriguez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Nistico, Crouch & Kessler, P.C., Michael L. Tipsord, Gustavo Hernandez, Diana K. Barnes and Copart Corporation
This text of Jesus Rodriguez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Nistico, Crouch & Kessler, P.C., Michael L. Tipsord, Gustavo Hernandez, Diana K. Barnes and Copart Corporation (Jesus Rodriguez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Nistico, Crouch & Kessler, P.C., Michael L. Tipsord, Gustavo Hernandez, Diana K. Barnes and Copart Corporation) 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
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-23-00226-CV
JESUS RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, NISTICO, CROUCH & KESSLER, P.C., MICHAEL L. TIPSORD, GUSTAVO HERNANDEZ, DIANA K. BARNES AND COPART CORPORATION, Appellees
From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 2029658
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 28, 2023, Jesus Rodriguez filed what appears to be an appeal from the
interlocutory orders that were signed on June 16, 2023, including an order denying a
motion to recuse the trial court judge. However, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an
appeal from a judgment that is not final, unless there is specific statutory authority
permitting an appeal before final judgment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012. And none of the exceptions to the rule that only final judgments can be appealed
applies in this case. See id. § 51.014 (listing interlocutory orders that may be appealed
before final judgment is rendered in the case); TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A) (“An order
denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from
the final judgment.”).
By letter dated August 3, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that this
appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared that there was no final judgment.
The Clerk of the Court notified the parties that the Court may dismiss this appeal unless,
within fourteen days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for
continuing the appeal.
No response has been received. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
MATT JOHNSON Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed August 30, 2023 [CV06]
Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jesus Rodriguez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Nistico, Crouch & Kessler, P.C., Michael L. Tipsord, Gustavo Hernandez, Diana K. Barnes and Copart Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesus-rodriguez-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-nistico-texapp-2023.