Tumlinson v. Gutierrez

Court of Appeals of Texas

Tumlinson v. Gutierrez

55 S.W.3d 673, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 5278, 2001 WL 878255

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedAugust 2, 2001

Docket13-00-670-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 55 S.W.3d 673 (Tumlinson v. Gutierrez) 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

Tumlinson v. Gutierrez, 55 S.W.3d 673, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 5278, 2001 WL 878255 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

DORSEY, Justice.

This action stems from a small claims court default judgment, in the amount of $4,996.41, rendered against Bill Tumlinson, *674 d.b.a. Bill Tumlinson Automotive, for work that appellee claims was unsatisfactory. Tumlinson was served in this case on April 3, 2000, and subsequently failed to appear for hearing on April 17, 2000. Tumlinson filed a motion for new trial that was overruled by operation of law. He then filed for a writ of certiorari on July 11, 2000, in the County Court at Law No. 2. That court dismissed Tumlinson’s action on grounds it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that a writ of certiorari would not he from a small claims judgment. The sole question presented to this Court is whether the trial court erred in dismissing Tumlinson’s cause on jurisdictional grounds.

First, we consider whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental. See H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bay, Inc., 808 S.W.2d 678, 679 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied). This Court, along with a majority of the courts of appeal, has held that no appeal lies from final judgment of a county court or a county court at law following a de novo appeal from small claims court. Oropeza v. Valdez, 53 S.W.3d 410, 411-12 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.); see Williamson v. A-1 Elec. Auto Serv., 28 S.W.3d 731, 732 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Lederman v. Rowe, 3 S.W.3d 254 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Davis v. Covert, 983 S.W.2d 301 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist] 1998, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). The statutory language is clear that a judgment rendered in the county or county court at law is final in these types of cases. See Tex. Gov’t Code ANN. § 28.053(d).

The Waco Court of Appeals has held the foregoing principle precludes appeal from an order dismissing for want of jurisdiction. See Lederman, 3 S.W.3d at 254. We agree. No appeal lies from the county court’s order dismissing an application for writ of certiorari to be directed to a justice court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

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

OPINION

DORSEY, Justice.

This action stems from a small claims court default judgment, in the amount of $4,996.41, rendered against Bill Tumlinson, *674 d.b.a. Bill Tumlinson Automotive, for work that appellee claims was unsatisfactory. Tumlinson was served in this case on April 3, 2000, and subsequently failed to appear for hearing on April 17, 2000. Tumlinson filed a motion for new trial that was overruled by operation of law. He then filed for a writ of certiorari on July 11, 2000, in the County Court at Law No. 2. That court dismissed Tumlinson’s action on grounds it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that a writ of certiorari would not he from a small claims judgment. The sole question presented to this Court is whether the trial court erred in dismissing Tumlinson’s cause on jurisdictional grounds.

First, we consider whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental. See H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bay, Inc., 808 S.W.2d 678, 679 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied). This Court, along with a majority of the courts of appeal, has held that no appeal lies from final judgment of a county court or a county court at law following a de novo appeal from small claims court. Oropeza v. Valdez, 53 S.W.3d 410, 411-12 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.); see Williamson v. A-1 Elec. Auto Serv., 28 S.W.3d 731, 732 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Lederman v. Rowe, 3 S.W.3d 254 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Davis v. Covert, 983 S.W.2d 301 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist] 1998, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). The statutory language is clear that a judgment rendered in the county or county court at law is final in these types of cases. See Tex. Gov’t Code ANN. § 28.053(d).

The Waco Court of Appeals has held the foregoing principle precludes appeal from an order dismissing for want of jurisdiction. See Lederman, 3 S.W.3d at 254. We agree. No appeal lies from the county court’s order dismissing an application for writ of certiorari to be directed to a justice court. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.W.3d 673, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 5278, 2001 WL 878255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tumlinson-v-gutierrez-texapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack