Court Opinion

ID: 2862756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 23:03:58.179511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:29:52.817713
License: Public Domain

<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0">

<p><font size="+1"><strong><center>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</strong></font></center>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><hr align="center" width="26%">

<strong><center>NO. 03-00<a name="1"></a>-00<a name="2">425</a>-CV</center>
</strong>

<p><hr align="center" width="26%">

<strong><center><a name="3">Odessa Tannehill and Danny Dorris</a>, Appellants</center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><center>v.</center>
</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2"><a name="4">
<p align="center"><strong>Building &amp; Standards Commission and the Department of Planning &amp; Development
Review of the City of Austin and the City of Austin</a>, Appellees</strong>

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p><strong><hr size="3">

<center>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF <a name="5">TRAVIS</a> COUNTY, <a name="6">98TH</a> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</center>
</strong>

<p><strong><center>NO. <a name="7">95-02353</a>, HONORABLE<a name="8"> FRED A. MOORE</a>, JUDGE PRESIDING</center>
</strong>

<p><strong><hr size="3">

</strong><strong>PER CURIAM</strong>

<p>	Odessa Tannehill and Danny Dorris<strong><a href="#N_1_"><sup>(1)</sup></a></strong> appeal from the trial court's order denying
their attempt to reinstate trial court cause number 95-02353.  We will dismiss the appeal for want
of jurisdiction.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

<p>	This appeal arises from a final order in district court cause number 95-02353, an
action concerning an order to demolish a structure on Tannehill's property.  The trial court signed
its final order in 95-02353 on October 2, 1995.<strong><a href="#N_2_"><sup>(2)</sup></a></strong>  No action taken by this Court on any appeal from
any cause arising out of the demolition order has ever resulted in a remand to the trial court that
would have left this cause pending in the trial court.  The trial court dismissed Tannehill's attempt
to reinstate cause 95-02353 because it had no jurisdiction.  Similarly, we have no jurisdiction, the
judgment and appeal having become final long ago.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want
of jurisdiction.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p>Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p>Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p>Filed:   September 21, 2000

<br wp="br1"><br wp="br2">
<p>Do Not Publish

<p><a name="N_1_">1. </a>       We continue to have concerns about Dorris's status as a litigant as it is not clear that he has
standing as a party.  However, as Tannehill has signed the pleadings below and the notice of
appeal, it appears Dorris, who is not an attorney, is trying to comply with the instructions from
this Court that he may not simply represent Tannehill through a power of attorney.  <em>Odessa
Tannehill and Danny Dorris v. State of Texas, County of Travis and City of Austin</em>, No. 03-97-208-CV (Tex. App.--July 3, 1997, writ refused n.r.e.).
<p><a name="N_2_">2. </a>       There has been a plethora of causes, appeals, and mandamus actions all arising out of that
demolition order:  our cause number 95-165 (district court 95-02353); 95 -722 ( 95-02353); 96-263
(95-15722); 96-293 (95-02353 &amp; 95-15722); 96-450 (96-04321); 97-208 (county court cause
233,914); 97-280 (233, 914).  None of these causes on appeal ever resulted in a remand to the trial
court that would have left any pending matters; all are long since final.
</body>
</html>