Joseph Oran Broussard v. Roy Arnel
This text of Joseph Oran Broussard v. Roy Arnel (Joseph Oran Broussard v. Roy Arnel) 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
Opinion issued May 21, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00769-CV ——————————— JOSEPH ORAN BROUSSARD, Appellant V. ROY ARNEL, Appellee
On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 20-DCV-278570
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 21, 2023, the Court issued a notice to appellant that the Court
might dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order appealed was
not a final, appealable order in that it did not dispose of all parties and claims. See
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Appellant responded to this Court’s notice, asserting that this Court had jurisdiction because
the interlocutory order was appealable under section 51.014(d). Appellant stated
that it had filed an amended notice of appeal citing to that statute. Section
51.014(d) provides:
On a party’s motion or on its own initiative, a trial court in a civil action may, by written order, permit an appeal from an order that is not otherwise appealable if: (1) the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(d). If a trial court has signed an order
permitting appeal from an interlocutory order, the party seeking to appeal must
petition the court of appeals for permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a).
The clerk’s record contains no order from the trial court permitting an appeal
under section 51.014(d) and appellant has not supplemented the clerk’s record with
an order. Therefore, appellant has not complied with the requirements for seeking
a permissive appeal and this Court lacks jurisdiction over this attempted appeal
from the interlocutory order signed on September 26, 2023. See Bosch v. Harris
Cty., No. 14-13-00739-CV, 2013 WL 5503744, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Oct. 1, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).
2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Joseph Oran Broussard v. Roy Arnel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-oran-broussard-v-roy-arnel-texapp-2024.