Court Opinion

ID: 5062771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 09:31:02.720075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:50.103009
License: Public Domain

Harry Hart appeals the trial court's ruling on three motions to strike pleadings. In this Court Rachel Hart has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the trial court's orders are interlocutory, thus unappealable, orders. We grant the motion and dismiss.
On May 14, 1984, the trial court overruled a motion to strike the pleadings and dismiss the action of a third party intervenor. We lack jurisdiction to review an order granting intervention because it is an unappealable interlocutory order. Southwestern Bell, Etc. v. Public Util., Etc., 615 S.W.2d 947
(Tex.Civ.App.-Austin), aff'd on other grounds,622 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. 1981); Tex.R.Civ.P. 60.
The trial court also overruled two motions to strike Rachel Hart's first amended answer and cross-claim. An order overruling a motion to strike a pleading is also an unappealable interlocutory order. Cantrell v. City of Dallas,350 S.W.2d 358 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1961, no writ);see also 4 Tex.Jur. 3d. Appellate Review
§§ 74 (1980); Annot., 1 A.L.R.2d 422 (1948).
 We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *Page 81