Waterford Lago Vista, LLC// WF Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Waterford Development Partners, LP and WF Property Owners Association, Inc.// Cross-Appellee, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC
This text of Waterford Lago Vista, LLC// WF Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Waterford Development Partners, LP and WF Property Owners Association, Inc.// Cross-Appellee, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC (Waterford Lago Vista, LLC// WF Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Waterford Development Partners, LP and WF Property Owners Association, Inc.// Cross-Appellee, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC) 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00393-CV
Appellant, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC// Cross-Appellant, WF Property Owners Association, Inc.
v.
Appellees, Waterford Development Partners, LP and WF Property Owners Association, Inc.//Cross-Appellee, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC
FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-21-002370, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Waterford Lago Vista, LLC, and Cross-Appellant WF Property Owners
Association, Inc., have filed petitions for permissive appeal seeking to challenge an interlocutory
order denying their motions for summary judgment and granting in part Appellee Waterford
Development Partners, LP’s motion for summary judgment. They have filed also a joint
opposed motion for stay of trial proceedings pending appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code § 51.014(d); Tex. R. App. P. 28.3. To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an
interlocutory order that would not otherwise be appealable, the requesting party must establish
that (1) the order to be appealed involves a “controlling question of law as to which there is a
substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) an immediate appeal from the order
“may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code § 51.014(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4); Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Because we conclude that the petition fails to establish each requirement of Rule 28.3(e)(4), we deny the petition for
permissive appeal, as well as the motion to stay proceedings. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4).
__________________________________________ Chari Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Filed: October 28, 2022
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Waterford Lago Vista, LLC// WF Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Waterford Development Partners, LP and WF Property Owners Association, Inc.// Cross-Appellee, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterford-lago-vista-llc-wf-property-owners-association-inc-v-texapp-2022.