Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen

Court of Appeals of Texas

Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 13, 2019·No. 01-18-00379-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). And an appellate court also has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order if a statute explicitly provides jurisdiction. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). In this case, the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate is neither an appealable interlocutory order nor a final judgment. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195 (“A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree.”); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court notified Blank that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless she caused to be filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing documents showing that the trial court had signed a final, or otherwise appealable, order or filed a written response showing how this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Blank has not responded.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss as moot all pending motions.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.

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

Opinion issued August 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). And an appellate court also has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order if a statute explicitly provides jurisdiction. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). In this case, the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate is neither an appealable interlocutory order nor a final judgment. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195 (“A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree.”); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court notified Blank that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless she caused to be filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing documents showing that the trial court had signed a final, or otherwise appealable, order or filed a written response showing how this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Blank has not responded.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss as moot all pending motions.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.

Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen (Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related