Tanya Marie Cox v. Hunter Webb and Arnold Gerik
This text of Tanya Marie Cox v. Hunter Webb and Arnold Gerik (Tanya Marie Cox v. Hunter Webb and Arnold Gerik) 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
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00373-CV
TANYA MARIE COX, Appellant v.
HUNTER WEBB AND ARNOLD GERIK, Appellees
From the 170th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016-1337-4
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 13, 2017, appellant, Tanya Marie Cox, filed a notice of appeal in this
matter purportedly challenging an order signed by the trial court on October 27, 2017.
However, attached to her notice of appeal is an order signed by the trial court on October
16, 2017, whereby the trial court denied traditional and no-evidence motions for
summary judgment filed by appellee, Arnold Gerik. Additionally, appellant’s notice of
appeal refers to the trial court cause number as 2016-1337-4. Nevertheless, after receiving the Clerk’s Record in this matter, we discovered that,
in trial court cause number 2016-1337-4, which is the basis for this appeal, the trial court
granted summary judgment in favor of Gerik on October 27, 2017. However, the trial
court’s October 27, 2017 order did not dispose of appellant’s claims against co-defendant
Hunter Webb. As such, the trial court’s October 27, 2017 order entered in trial court cause
number 2016-1337-4 is not final. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.
2001) (noting that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment); see also Sultan v.
Mathew, 178 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Tex. 2005) (“To be final for purposes of appeal, a judgment
must dispose of all issues and parties in a case.” (internal citation omitted)).
On February 6, 2018, we notified appellant by letter that this appeal is subject to
dismissal because appellant appeals from an order that is not final. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3, 44.3. We requested a response from appellant showing grounds for continuing the
appeal to be filed within twenty-one days of our February 6, 2018 letter. More than
twenty-one days have passed, and appellant has not filed a response in this case. We
therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. at R. 42.3; see also Sultan, 178
S.W.3d at 751; Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.
AL SCOGGINS Justice
Cox v. Webb, et al. Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2018 [CV06]
Cox v. Webb, et al. Page 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tanya Marie Cox v. Hunter Webb and Arnold Gerik, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanya-marie-cox-v-hunter-webb-and-arnold-gerik-texapp-2018.