Court Opinion

ID: 3072968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:51:38.465008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:42.224026
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-15-00025-CV

                               COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

YVONNE RUDD,                                                                       Appellant,

                                               v.

JUAN MANUEL ORTIZ,                                  Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 92nd District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

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

       Appellant, Yvonne Rudd, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by

the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo, County, Texas, in cause no. F-2917-09-A. Upon

review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable

judgment dated November 25, 2014. On January 13, 2015, the Clerk of this Court

notified appellant 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.      Appellant was 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. Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

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

entered on November 25, 2014. 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 appellant's 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
5th day of March, 2015.

                                             2