Richard Swaim Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen Swwaim v. Nannette Real Estate Holdings, L.L.C. and Charles Rayford Glover

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 21, 2019
Docket01-19-00065-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Richard Swaim Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen Swwaim v. Nannette Real Estate Holdings, L.L.C. and Charles Rayford Glover (Richard Swaim Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen Swwaim v. Nannette Real Estate Holdings, L.L.C. and Charles Rayford Glover) 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
Richard Swaim Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen Swwaim v. Nannette Real Estate Holdings, L.L.C. and Charles Rayford Glover, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Richard Swaim Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen Swaim v. Nannette Real Estate Holdings, L.L.C. and Charles Rayford Glover

Appellate case number: 01-19-00065-CV

Trial court case number: 1113301

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

Appellant has filed an accelerated appeal from the trial court’s January 7, 2019 order granting a temporary injunction. The clerk’s record filed on February 4, 2019 contains this order and a review of that order indicates that it does not contain a trial setting. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires a temporary injunction order to state the reasons for its issuance and to set the cause for trial on the merits. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 683; Conlin v. Haun, 419 S.W.3d 682, 685–86 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). The procedural requirements in Rule 683 are mandatory and if the temporary injunction order does not meet these requirements, it is “subject to being declared void and dissolved.” Conlin, 419 S.W.3d at 686 (citing Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT & T, 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000)). An appellate court has no jurisdiction to review the merits of a void order. See Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623 (Tex. 2012). If the order is void, our jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the order is void, and if it is determined to be void, the Court must vacate it and dismiss the appeal. See id. at 624. Accordingly, the Court asks the parties to file a response within 10 days of the date of this order, with citation to the clerk’s record and to authority, whether the January 7, 2019 order is void. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Justice Richard Hightower_______________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __February 21, 2019____

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

Related

Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT & T CORP.
24 S.W.3d 334 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Kevin Conlin and Kathryn Conlin v. Darrell Haun and Solarcraft, Inc.
419 S.W.3d 682 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Coronado
372 S.W.3d 621 (Texas Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richard Swaim Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Karen Swwaim v. Nannette Real Estate Holdings, L.L.C. and Charles Rayford Glover, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-swaim-individually-and-as-administrator-of-the-estate-of-karen-texapp-2019.