Court Opinion

ID: 2926311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 22:27:25.381224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:23.320019
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-09-00323-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

HINO ELECTRIC HOLDING COMPANY
D/B/A HINO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY,                                        APPELLANT,

                                            v.

CITY OF HARLINGEN,                                 APPELLEE.
_____________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 357th District Court
                   of Cameron County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

                   Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellant, Hino Electric Holding Company d/b/a Hino Electric Power Company,

attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the 357th District Court of

Cameron, County, Texas, in cause no. 2009-03-1952-E. On July 16, 2009, appellee filed

a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Upon review of the documents before the Court,
it appeared that the order from which this appeal was taken was not a final appealable

order. 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.      The Court

requested that appellant file a response indicating whether this Court has jurisdiction and

if the defect was not corrected, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant responded that it requested the Court make a determination of the finality of the

trial court’s order.

       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. See id. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is

GRANTED and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See

id. 42.3(b),(c).

                                                         PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 17th day of September, 2009.

                                             2