Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Johnnie Lee CARTER, Appellant, v. SUN CITY TOWING & RECOVERY, L.P., Appellee.
OPINION
Pending before the Court is Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On August 23, 2005, Appellant Johnnie Lee Carter filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal from the trial court's order to consolidate the cause with causes Johnnie Lee Carter v. Stevens Transport, case number 2005-3445, and Johnnie Lee Carter v. Alliance Leasing, Inc., case number 2005-3431. Appellant also stated his desire to appeal “the Court's refusal to take an oral Motion to NONSUIT Without Prejudice” in Johnnie Lee Carter v. Sun City Towing & Recovery, L.P. Appellee has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, arguing that neither the alleged trial court action is now appealable nor proper by interlocutory appeal.
As a general rule, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex.2001). Here, the order of consolidation complained-of is clearly interlocutory because it does not dispose of all the parties to and claims asserted in the causes that were consolidated. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205 (an order or judgment is final when it disposes of all parties and claims). This Court has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal only when expressly provided by statute. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex.1998). We can find no statute that expressly authorizes the interlocutory appeal of an order to consolidate separate lawsuits. Further, there is no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from a trial court's refusal to take an oral motion to nonsuit without prejudice. Thus, we conclude we have no jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.
The court has considered this cause upon Appellee's motion to dismiss and is of the opinion that it should be granted. The motion is therefore granted and this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a).
DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Justice.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 08-05-00290-CV.
Decided: October 20, 2005
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas,El Paso.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)