Court Opinion

ID: 2924172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:56:43.862264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:02.169639
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-06-700-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

___________________________________________________________________

MARY JACKSON AND PHILLIP JACKSON,		Appellants,

v.

MAYOR SAMUEL LOYD NEAL AND CARLOS VALDEZ,	Appellees.
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th  District Court

of De Witt County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Rodriguez

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

	Mary and Phillip Jackson filed suit in DeWitt County against the City of Corpus
Christi, John Doe, Jane Doe, Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal, and District Attorney Carlos
Valdez for "illegal seizure."  The trial court granted a motion to transfer this matter to
Nueces County, Texas.  This appeal ensued. 
	Generally, appellate jurisdiction exists only in cases in which a final judgment
has been rendered that disposes of all issues and parties in the case or when a statute
authorizes an appeal of an interlocutory order.  See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39
S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  Section 15.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code provides the trial court shall determine venue questions from the
pleadings and affidavits and that "no interlocutory appeal shall lie from the
determination."  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.064 (Vernon 2002); see Am.
Home Prods. Corp. v. Clark, 38 S.W.3d 92, 95 (Tex. 2000).  Thus, the law does not
provide for judicial review of an interlocutory order transferring venue.  
	Appellees, Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal and District Attorney Carlos Valdez, have
each filed motions to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  Appellant's response
to Mayor Samuel Lloyd Neal's motion fails to establish that this Court has jurisdiction
over the appeal.
	We grant these motions and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  See
Tex. R. App. p. 42.3(a).  Any other pending motions are also dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.

							PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this
the 8th day of March, 2007.