Randle Daniels v. Clark Giddings and State Farm Lloyds
This text of Randle Daniels v. Clark Giddings and State Farm Lloyds (Randle Daniels v. Clark Giddings and State Farm Lloyds) 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
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00281-CV
RANDLE DANIELS APPELLANT
V.
CLARK GIDDINGS AND STATE APPELLEES FARM LLOYDS
----------
FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ----------
Appellant Randle Daniels attempts to appeal from an April 29, 2011 order
granting summary judgment for Appellee State Farm Lloyds. On August 12,
2011, we notified Daniels of our concern that this court may not have jurisdiction
over the appeal because the April 29, 2011 order and a May 23, 2011 order of
nonsuit do not appear to dispose of all parties in the case, particularly Appellee
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Clark Giddings. We informed Daniels that unless he or any party desiring to
continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before August 25, 2011, a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal would be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Daniels filed a
response acknowledging that the appeal was premature because additional
parties remained who were not subject to the summary judgment order.
Accordingly, because the April 29, 2011 order is neither a final judgment nor an
appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205
(Tex. 2001) (reasoning that an order or judgment is not final for purposes of
appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly and
unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties); see City of
Beaumont v. Guillory, 751 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1988) (reasoning that in the
absence of a severance, the party against whom an interlocutory summary
judgment has been rendered has the right of appeal when and not before the
partial summary judgment is merged in a final judgment disposing of all parties
and issues).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.
DELIVERED: August 31, 2011
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Randle Daniels v. Clark Giddings and State Farm Lloyds, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randle-daniels-v-clark-giddings-and-state-farm-llo-texapp-2011.