Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., A/K/A Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry v. Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 12, 2010
Docket03-10-00127-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., A/K/A Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry v. Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh (Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., A/K/A Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry v. Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh) 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
Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., A/K/A Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry v. Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00127-CV

Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., a/k/a Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry, Appellants

v.

Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 30599, HONORABLE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from an order denying a motion to terminate a receivership and

granting the receiver’s application to extend the receivership. Appellees Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr.

and Dianna Cavanaugh have filed a supplemental docketing statement with a jurisdictional

statement. See Tex. R. App. P. 32.3. They contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal

because the appeal is from an interlocutory order that is not a final judgment and the notice of appeal

was not filed within 20 days after the interlocutory order was signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b),

28.1; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (judgment generally final for

purposes of appeal “if it disposes of all pending parties and claims”).

Appellants Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., a/k/a Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann

Fortenberry have filed a stipulation to appellees’ jurisdictional statement. Appellants agree that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal and request that this Court dismiss the appeal. Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 12, 2010

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

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Roland D. Fortenberry, Jr., A/K/A Dale Fortenberry, Jr. and Kaye Ann Fortenberry v. Gerald R. Cavanaugh, Jr. and Dianna Cavanaugh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roland-d-fortenberry-jr-aka-dale-fortenberry-jr-an-texapp-2010.