Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, John Silovsky, and the State of Texas v. Steven Wieser and Jason Chancey
This text of Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, John Silovsky, and the State of Texas v. Steven Wieser and Jason Chancey (Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, John Silovsky, and the State of Texas v. Steven Wieser and Jason Chancey) 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. 10-23-00361-CV
TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, JOHN SILOVSKY, AND STATE OF TEXAS, Appellants v.
STEVEN WIESER AND JASON CHANCEY, Appellees
From the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023-2412-3
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellees Steven Wieser and Jason Chancey have filed an unopposed “Motion to
Dismiss Based on Nonsuit.”
In the underlying case, Wieser and Chancey filed an original petition and
application for ex parte temporary restraining order and temporary injunction against
Appellants Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, John Silovsky, and the State of Texas (collectively, TPWD). The trial court signed an order granting Wieser’s and Chancey’s
application for a temporary restraining order.
TPWD thereafter filed a general denial of Wieser’s and Chancey’s allegations and
a plea to the jurisdiction. TPWD did not request any counter-relief from Wieser or
Chancey. Following a hearing, the trial court denied TPWD’s plea to the jurisdiction.
TPWD subsequently filed this interlocutory appeal. We granted Wieser’s and
Chancey’s emergency motion for temporary relief and extended the trial court’s
temporary restraining order until further order of this Court.
Wieser and Chancey explain in their motion to dismiss that this appeal is now
moot because they filed a notice of nonsuit in the trial court on March 11, 2024. “Subject
matter jurisdiction requires that the party bringing the suit have standing, that there be a
live controversy between the parties, and that the case be justiciable.” State Bar of Tex. v.
Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994). “Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding
moot controversies.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999).
A nonsuit is effective when filed. Bush v. Hines, 594 S.W.3d 713, 714 (Tex. App.—
Waco 2019, no pet.) (citing Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon, 195
S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)). Accordingly, when a plaintiff nonsuits his
claims against a defendant who has no pending claims for affirmative relief, there is no
longer a case or controversy between the parties. See Estate of Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d at
100; see also Hirner v. Doe, No. 12-08-00046-CV, 2009 WL 1871794, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler
June 30, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). We therefore conclude that there is no longer a case or
Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Wieser Page 2 controversy between Wieser and Chancey and TPWD. Accordingly, we lack subject
matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Gomez, 891 S.W.2d at 245.
We lift our November 14, 2023 order extending the trial court’s temporary
restraining order. Wieser’s and Chancey’s “Motion to Dismiss Based on Nonsuit,” filed
on March 11, 2024, is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
MATT JOHNSON Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 28, 2024 [CV06]
Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Wieser Page 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, John Silovsky, and the State of Texas v. Steven Wieser and Jason Chancey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-parks-wildlife-department-john-silovsky-and-the-state-of-texas-v-texapp-2024.