Russell Burke and Wife, Lori Burke v. Anadarko E & P Company, L.P., F/K/A Union Pacific Resources Company

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 11, 2002
• Docket: 06-02-00172-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-02-00172-CV

RUSSELL BURKE AND WIFE, LORI BURKE, Appellants

V.

ANADARKO E & P COMPANY, L.P., F/K/A UNION

PACIFIC RESOURCES COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 4th Judicial District Court

Rusk County, Texas

Trial Court No. 99-493

Before Morriss, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.

Opinion by Justice Grant

O P I N I O N

Russell and Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson as Chapter 7 trustee have appealed from a partial summary judgment. The appellee, Anadarko E & P Co., L.P., f/k/a Union Pacific Resources Company, has filed a motion asking this court to dismiss the appeal and asking us to impose sanctions on the appellants for prematurely filing their Notice of Appeal.

There is no question that the summary judgment is partial. It does not dispose of all the issues in the case, and there is no suggestion that it is a proper judgment for an interlocutory appeal. Generally, only final decisions of trial courts are appealable. . Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012 (Vernon 1997) (final judgment of district and county courts); ⁽¹⁾ Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

Further, appellants have informed this court that the remaining portions of the case have now been tried and that a jury verdict has been reached. They correctly note that a prematurely filed Notice of Appeal is effective and deemed filed on the day of, but after, the event that begins the period for perfecting the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 27.1(a).

That event has not yet occurred. Appellants have not suggested that a judgment has been signed by the trial court. Accordingly, there is not yet a final judgment from which they may appeal.

We have no jurisdiction over this appeal. We have reviewed the request for sanctions, and we find that at this time, the imposition of sanctions by this court is not warranted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Ben Z. Grant

Justice

Date Submitted: December 10, 2002

Date Decided: December 11, 2002

Do Not Publish

1. The Legislature has authorized the appeal of a number of interlocutory orders. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2003) (authorizing interlocutory appeals of orders appointing receivers or trustees; orders overruling motions to vacate orders appointing receivers or trustees; orders certifying or refusing to certify a class; orders granting or refusing temporary injunctions; and orders denying motions for summary judgment based on claims of immunity or free speech grounds). There is no suggestion this case falls within any of those exceptions.

                                                         In The

                                                Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                                                             No. 06-10-00039-CV

                                    CARLOS A. ARMENTA, Appellant

                                           TDCJ–ID, ET AL., Appellee

                                      On Appeal from the 202nd Judicial District Court

                                                             Bowie County, Texas

                                                      Trial Court No. 09C1296-202

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

                                                     MEMORANDUM  OPINION

            This is an appeal by Carlos A. Armenta from the trial court’s order dismissing his cause of action against defendants the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division, et al. 

            The order entered in this appeal, however, states that “Plaintiff’s §1983 claim of deliberate indifference against Defendant Ayers is NOT DISMISSED.”

            The general rule is that a final and appealable judgment must determine the entire controversy, disposing of all the parties and issues in a case.  Schlipf v. Exxon Corp., 644 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex. 1982); N. E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 295 S.W.2d 890, 892 (1956).

            Because the trial court’s order dismissing this suit did not dispose of all defendants, it is not final, and this is an interlocutory appeal from a nonappealable judgment.  Accordingly, we dismiss Armenta’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                        Bailey C. Moseley

Date Submitted:          May 18, 2010

Date Decided:             May 19, 2010