William G. Martin, Jr. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Future Telecom, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company

Court of Appeals of Texas

William G. Martin, Jr. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Future Telecom, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company

DecidedJune 12, 2018

Docket14-18-00357-CV

StatusPublished

This text of William G. Martin, Jr. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Future Telecom, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company (William G. Martin, Jr. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Future Telecom, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company) 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

William G. Martin, Jr. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Future Telecom, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition for Permission to Appeal Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed June 12, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00357-CV

WILLIAM G. MARLIN, JR., Appellant V.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND FUTURE TELECOM, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-22334

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant William G. Marlin, Jr. filed with our court a petition for permissive interlocutory appeal seeking to reverse the trial court’s April 18, 2018 granting a special exception to and striking a theory of damages pled by appellant.

To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable, the requesting party must establish that the order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and allowing an immediate appeal “may advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d); see also Tex. R. App. P. 28.3.

The petition fails to establish that the challenged order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. Accordingly, we deny the petition and dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.

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