Court Opinion

ID: 2807288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-11 11:20:12.878223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:05.425839
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-15-00203-CV

                          COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                   CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

MYRA MORRIS,
KLEBERG COUNTY ATTORNEY KIRA TALIP, AND
KLEBERG COUNTY JUDGE RUDY MADRID,                                      Appellants,

                                         v.

CORINA MADRIGAL,                                    Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

            On appeal from the 105th District Court of
                    Kleberg County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
     Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellants, Myra Morris, Kleberg County Attorney Kira Talip, and Kleberg County

Judge Rudy Madrid seek to appeal a March 23, 2015 order granting a petition for

depositions under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.      See TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.
Currently before the Court is appellants’ “Supplemental Statement Concerning

Jurisdiction,” which states that on March 28, 2015, the trial court signed an order vacating

the March 23, 2015 order subject to appeal in this cause. Appellants state that the trial

court’s March 28, 2015 order may have divested the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction

over this appeal.

       Because the trial court has vacated the order subject to appeal, we conclude that

this appeal has been rendered moot. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d
732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between

the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings . . .”); Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171,

184 (Tex. 2001) (noting that “a controversy must exist between the parties at every stage

of the legal proceeding, including the appeal” and that, if controversy ceases to exist,

case becomes moot); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994)

(stating that, for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between

the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought). Accordingly, this

appeal is DISMISSED. See Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex.

2012); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                 PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
11th day of June, 2015.

                                             2