Court Opinion

ID: 3088583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:28:31.119642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:10.285700
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00226-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

BRUCE OLSON AND
GERALD SANSING,                                                        Appellants,

                                         v.

CARLOS GARCIA,                                      Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 28th District Court
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

      Appellants, Bruce Olson and Gerald Sansing, attempted to perfect an appeal from

an order denying summary judgment signed on February 12, 2013, in cause no.

07-06573-A. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was

no final, appealable judgment dated February 12, 2013. On June 5, 2013, the Clerk of
this Court notified appellants of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the

defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3.      Appellants were advised

that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice,

the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellants responded to the

Court’s notice by providing a copy of the handwritten docket sheet which has an entry

dated February 12, 2013 stating the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.

       The Nueces County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no judgment was

entered on February 12, 2013. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only

have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by

statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).

       The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ failure to

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.      Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

                                                  PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the
1st day of August, 2013.

                                             2