Lyman S. Reed and Lyman S. Reed Family Limited Partnership v. Byron H. Davis and BHD Land, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 9, 2017
• Docket: 01-16-00914-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 9, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00914-CV ——————————— LYMAN S. REED AND LYMAN S. REED FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellants V. BYRON H. DAVIS AND BHD LAND, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 16-CV-0281

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Lyman S. Reed and Lyman S. Reed Family Limited Partnership,

have filed a petition for permissive appeal seeking to challenge an interlocutory

order granting a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of appellees, Byron

H. Davis and BHD Land, Inc. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2016); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. To be entitled to a

permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that would not otherwise be

appealable, the requesting party must establish that (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

ANN. § 51.014(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e)(4); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. The petition

fails to establish that the order involves a controlling question of law as to which

there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion and an immediate appeal

from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e)(4). Accordingly, we deny the petition for permissive

appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.