Court Opinion

ID: 4671714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-26 06:15:25.317446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:24.052990
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-21-00041-CV
                               __________________

    JOHN PRESTON BLALOCK AND JOHN PRESTON BLALOCK II,
            A/K/A BLALOCK HOUSEHOLD, Appellants

                                          V.

            MERCY WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 258th District Court
                      San Jacinto County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. CV16,563
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On March 8, 2021, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not

identify a judgment or appealable order. The appellee, Mercy Water Supply

Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The

appellants, John Preston Blalock and John Preston Blalock II, a/k/a Blalock

Household, filed a response to the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry, but did not identify

                                          1
any statutory basis for an accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing

some, but not all of their claims.

      Generally, appellate courts review only final judgments and interlocutory

orders specifically made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An appeal from an interlocutory order may proceed

as an accelerated appeal “when allowed by statute[.]” See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1. The

appellants failed to identify a signed order by the trial court that they may appeal as

an accelerated appeal. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014.

We grant the motion to dismiss. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                                     PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 24, 2021
Opinion Delivered March 25, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

                                          2