Court Opinion

ID: 2840936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-03 00:56:13.058244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:15.748710
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued October , 2008

Opinion issued December 18, 2008

             

In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________

NO. 01-06-01069-CV
____________

RALPH O. DOUGLAS, Appellant

V.

JOYCE BOOKER,  Appellee
 
________________________________________________________________________
 
On Appeal from the 129th District Court 
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2005-80795
__________________________________________________________________
 
 
MEMORANDUM  OPINION               Appellant, Ralph O. Douglas, challenges the trial court’s order denying
his no-evidence motion for summary judgment.  
               We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Analysis
               The order from which Douglas appeals states as follows:
Order
On the 23rd day of October, 2006, came to be heard plaintiff’s
no-evidence motion for summary judgment.  After considering
the pleadings, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion.
On November 20, 2006, Douglas served notice of his intent to
appeal this trial court order.
               The general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal
may be taken only from a final judgment.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d
191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  When there has not been a conventional trial on the merits,
an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes
of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that
it finally disposes of all claims and parties.  Id. at 205.  Here, the trial court order
denied Douglas’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment, but it did not
dispose of his claims, nor did it unequivocally state that it finally disposed of all
claims and parties.
               The Clerk of this Court brought the interlocutory nature of the order from
which Douglas is appealing to his attention and requested that Douglas file a
response explaining the jurisdictional basis of the appeal.  Douglas has responded,
but has not provided the requested explanation.
Conclusion
               We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). 
Any pending motions are likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
 
 
Terry Jennings
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Hanks, and Bland.