William Shelton Marks v. Thomas Heyward Carter III

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 10, 2018
Docket14-18-00242-CV
StatusPublished

This text of William Shelton Marks v. Thomas Heyward Carter III (William Shelton Marks v. Thomas Heyward Carter III) 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 Shelton Marks v. Thomas Heyward Carter III, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Motion Denied; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 10, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00242-CV

WILLIAM SHELTON MARKS, Appellant V. THOMAS HEYWARD CARTER III, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-83348

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from orders denying plaintiff/appellant William Shelton Marks’ motion to disqualify counsel and denying his request for reconsideration of his motion to disqualify counsel.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har– Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

No statute appears to permit an interlocutory appeal of the orders appellant attempts to appeal. On June 8, 2018, this court notified the parties of its intention to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless, by June 18, 2018, a response was filed showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). No response was filed.

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.1

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell

1 On May 7, 2018, appellant filed a document entitled “Non-Suit.” He states in that document that he “files this non-suit without prejudice” due to “undue intimidation by the district attorney for Harris County Texas” as well as “disparate economic, resource, and influential advantage that the district attorney has to overwhelm the appellant’s limited ability and resources.” To the extent appellant’s filing can be considered a motion for voluntary dismissal of his appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

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

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson
53 S.W.3d 352 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps
842 S.W.2d 266 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William Shelton Marks v. Thomas Heyward Carter III, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-shelton-marks-v-thomas-heyward-carter-iii-texapp-2018.