Ramos v. Richardson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ramos v. Richardson

228 S.W.3d 714, 2006 WL 330044

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 16, 2006

Docket13-05-204-CV, 13-05-205-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 S.W.3d 714 (Ramos v. Richardson) 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.

Bluebook

Ramos v. Richardson, 228 S.W.3d 714, 2006 WL 330044 (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by

Justice CASTILLO.

On February 17, 2005, the trial court entered an order dismissing these lawsuits for noncompliance with statutory requisites of section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351 (Vernon Supp.2005). The orders became final on March 19, 2005. The notices of appeal were filed on March 22, 2005, which did not occur within the plenary thirty-day *715 period after entering judgment. Tex.R. Civ. P. 329b(d); Tex.R.App. P. 26.1(a)(1),(3); Bd. of Trustees v. Toungate, 958 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.1997). The trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expired. In re Garcia, 94 S.W.3d 832, 833-34 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding). Therefore, the order appealed from is final and unap-pealable. Toungate, 958 S.W.2d at 367. Judicial action taken after a trial court’s jurisdiction over a cause has expired is a nullity. State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex.1995) (per curiam). Our jurisdiction extends no further than that of the court from which the appeal is taken. Mills v. Warner-Lambert Co., 157 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex.2005) (per curiam) (citing Pearson v. State, 159 Tex. 66, 315 S.W.2d 935, 938 (1958)); Nabejas v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 972 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to consider these appeals. Id. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by

Justice CASTILLO.

On February 17, 2005, the trial court entered an order dismissing these lawsuits for noncompliance with statutory requisites of section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351 (Vernon Supp.2005). The orders became final on March 19, 2005. The notices of appeal were filed on March 22, 2005, which did not occur within the plenary thirty-day *715 period after entering judgment. Tex.R. Civ. P. 329b(d); Tex.R.App. P. 26.1(a)(1),(3); Bd. of Trustees v. Toungate, 958 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.1997). The trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expired. In re Garcia, 94 S.W.3d 832, 833-34 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding). Therefore, the order appealed from is final and unap-pealable. Toungate, 958 S.W.2d at 367. Judicial action taken after a trial court’s jurisdiction over a cause has expired is a nullity. State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex.1995) (per curiam). Our jurisdiction extends no further than that of the court from which the appeal is taken. Mills v. Warner-Lambert Co., 157 S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex.2005) (per curiam) (citing Pearson v. State, 159 Tex. 66, 315 S.W.2d 935, 938 (1958)); Nabejas v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 972 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to consider these appeals. Id. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.W.3d 714, 2006 WL 330044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-richardson-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack