Court Opinion

ID: 9393405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 06:08:28.130091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.137246
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 8, 2023

                                   S    In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00299-CV

              BADGER TAVERN LP, 1676 REGAL JV, AND
        1676 REGAL ROW, DALLAS, TEXAS, IN REM, Appellants
                              V.
                    CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-16151

            MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
        Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein
                         Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
      Appellants seek rehearing of our prior opinion dismissing their petition for

permissive appeal for want of jurisdiction. We deny the motion and, on our own

motion, withdraw our April 20, 2023 opinion and vacate the judgment of that date.

This is now the opinion of the Court.

      Before the Court is appellants’ petition for permissive appeal of the trial

court’s interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss pursuant to rule of

civil procedure 91a. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a (concerning dismissal of baseless

causes of action). 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 ANN. § 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 and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

28.3(e)(4); 42.3(a).

                                             /Robert D. Burns, III/
                                             ROBERT D. BURNS, III
                                             CHIEF JUSTICE

230299F.P05

                                       –2–
                               S
                          Court of Appeals
                   Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               JUDGMENT

BADGER TAVERN LP, 1676                   On Appeal from the 134th Judicial
REGAL JV, AND 1676 REGAL                 District Court, Dallas County, Texas
ROW, DALLAS, TEXAS, IN REM,              Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-16151.
Appellants                               Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
                                         Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein
No. 05-23-00299-CV       V.              participating.

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

      It is ORDERED that appellee CITY OF DALLAS recover its costs of this
appeal from appellants BADGER TAVERN LP, 1676 REGAL JV, AND 1676
REGAL ROW, DALLAS, TEXAS, IN REM.

Judgment entered May 8, 2023

                                   –3–