Oscar Wardon Still, Future Home, L.L.C., Rabbit Creek Mountain Mud Blast, Rabbit Creek ATV-RV Park, and East Texas All Terrain Monsters v. Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations, and Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.
This text of Oscar Wardon Still, Future Home, L.L.C., Rabbit Creek Mountain Mud Blast, Rabbit Creek ATV-RV Park, and East Texas All Terrain Monsters v. Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations, and Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P. (Oscar Wardon Still, Future Home, L.L.C., Rabbit Creek Mountain Mud Blast, Rabbit Creek ATV-RV Park, and East Texas All Terrain Monsters v. Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations, and Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.) 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
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-05-00052-CV
OSCAR WARDON STILL, FUTURE INCOME, L.L.C.,
RABBIT CREEK MOUNTAIN MUD BLAST,
RABBIT CREEK ATV-RV PARK, AND
EAST TEXAS ALL TERRAIN MONSTERS, Appellants
Â
V.
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, TEXAS OPERATIONS,
AND ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (EAST TEXAS), L.P., Appellees
                                             Â
On Appeal from the County Court at Law #2
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2004-1861-CCL2
                                                Â
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross
MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Appellants, Oscar Wardon Still, Future Income, L.L.C., Rabbit Creek Mountain Mud Blast, Rabbit Creek ATV-RV Park, and East Texas All Terrain Monsters, filed a notice of appeal March 24, 2005, attacking the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law entered March 22, 2005.
          The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law do not constitute a final, appealable order. Unless otherwise statutorily authorized, an appeal may be made only from a final judgment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012 (Vernon 1997), § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004â2005). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
                                                                           Donald R. Ross
                                                                           Justice
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â April 25, 2005
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â April 26, 2005
"false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
                       Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
                                               ______________________________
                                                            No. 06-09-00220-CR
                                               ______________________________
                                      CHARLES HEARNE, Appellant
                                                               V.
                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
                                                                                                 Â
                                        On Appeal from the 6th Judicial District Court
                                                            Lamar County, Texas
                                                           Trial Court No. 20502
                                                                                                 Â
                                         Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
                                             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
                                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION
           Charles Hearne has filed a notice of appeal from the revocation of his community supervision. We have now received the certification of HearneÂs right of appeal as required by Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2. That certification states that Hearne waived his right of appeal.
           Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Because the trial courtÂs certification affirmatively shows that Hearne has waived his right of appeal, and because the record before us does not reflect that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal.
           We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
                                                                       Jack Carter
                                                                       Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Oscar Wardon Still, Future Home, L.L.C., Rabbit Creek Mountain Mud Blast, Rabbit Creek ATV-RV Park, and East Texas All Terrain Monsters v. Eastman Chemical Company, Texas Operations, and Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oscar-wardon-still-future-home-llc-rabbit-creek-mountain-mud-blast-texapp-2005.