History
  • No items yet
midpage
Senrick Wilkerson v. the City of Dallas
05-16-00938-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 20, 2016
|
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 20, 2016

In The

No. 05-16-00938-CV

V.

CITY OF DALLAS, LORI ORDIWAY, CALVIN JOHNSON, BROOK GRONA-ROBB, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ, Appellees

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-00716-D MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

By letter dated September 9, 2016, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, there does not appear to be a final judgment. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our concern with an opportunity for appellees to file a response. Appellant filed a letter brief but appellees did not.

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See id

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s July 24, 2016 order denying two of his pretrial motions and overruling his objections to a joint motion to declare him a vexatious litigant. On *2 the record before this Court, it appears the motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigant remains pending in the trial court.

Appellant contends there is a final judgment and relies on the following statement in the July 24th order: “[t]he motions are DENIED and the objections are OVERRULED.” This statement does not show that a final judgment was rendered. Rather, it shows that the trial court considered and ruled on appellant’s two motions and objections, nothing more.

Because the record before this Court does not contain a final judgment or other appealable interlocutory order, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a).

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE 160938F.P05

JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District

Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-16-00938-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-00716-D.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. CITY OF DALLAS, LORI ORDIWAY, Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart CALVIN JOHNSON, BROOK GRONA- participating.

ROBB, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DALLAS

COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN

HAWK, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, AND DALLAS COUNTY

SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ, Appellees

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED It is ORDERED that appellees CITY OF DALLAS, LORI ORDIWAY, CALVIN JOHNSON, BROOK GRONA-ROBB, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ recover their costs of this appeal from appellant SENRICK WILKERSON.

Judgment entered October 20, 2016.

Case Details

Case Name: Senrick Wilkerson v. the City of Dallas
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Oct 20, 2016
Docket Number: 05-16-00938-CV
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.