Every passage below is lifted verbatim out of the citing opinion, with the
citation itself highlighted. Nothing here is a summary and nothing is generated —
it is what the later court actually wrote.
Jared Voetee v. Ovation Services, LLC2026-06-25
…ble order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Upon review of the record, it appears that some parties and claims to the underlying litigation remain pending before the trial court; specifically, there appears to be no resolution of the claims brought by intervenor Caldwell County Appraisal District. Based on the items in the appellate record, it appears there is not y…
Jim S. Adler, P.C. D/B/A Jim Adler & Associates v. Francisco Martinez as Next Friend of Claudia Ortiz, an Incapacitated Person2026-06-25
…ms brought by my client into their own cause number making that order final and appealable.” The written order could have been clearer, but in light of the entire record we conclude that it disposed of both fee agreements. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001) (“The record may help illumine whether an order is made final by its own language, so that an order that all parties appear to have treated 9 As for the scope and effect of our holding, we note that Adler does not seek reversal of the summary judgment as to Ortiz; it does not…
Dominique Taylor v. Angela Faye Brown & Associates, PLLC. and Angela Faye Brown2026-06-23
The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
Christopher M. Perricone v. Katie Beth Perricone2026-06-18
The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
Delester Scott v. Peter Hinh2026-06-18
…ute, Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only to review final judgments. McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018). A judgment or order is final if it disposes of every pending claim and party. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). An order denying a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment does not finally dispose of the plaintiff’s claims and does not constitute a final judgment. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1996); Surety Bonding Co. of Am. v. Auto. Acceptance Corp., 674 S.W.3d 580, 587 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st D…
Rosa Arreola and Carlos Padilla, Husband and Wife v. Sammy Brown, Ryder Mitchell Jensen and Alison Margaret Jensen, Husband and Wife, and All Those Ha2026-06-11
…issed without prejudice and affirm the judgment as modified. 29 A final judgment is considered erroneous if the record does not provide an adequate basis for rendition of judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). A judgment that grants more relief than a party is entitled to is erroneous and subject to reversal—but “only those portions of the judgment based on harmful error.” G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293, 298 (Tex. 2011); see Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200. A trial court cannot grant summary judgment on grounds not present…
Boris Iofis v. Bradley Weimert and David Lawver2026-06-05
…othing in the record indicates that the summary-judgment order is one from which an interlocutory appeal may be taken, cf., e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014, we currently lack jurisdiction over this attempted appeal, see Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (“[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.”). In an appropriate case, we may abate an attempted appeal like this and remand the case to the trial court for it to sign a final judgment. See Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, No. 03-24…
Amanda Canida v. B&H Realty, LLC2026-06-04
…es that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded has not yet been determined. We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014. A final judgment is one that (1) “actually disposes of every pending claim and party” or (2) “clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. Unless one of the statutory exceptions listed under Section 51.014…
Maria N Villani v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance Inc.2026-06-04
…s of its language; or (2) include unequivocal finality language that expressly disposes of all claims and parties.” Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C. v. Free Standing Emergency Room Managers of Am., 685 S.W.3d 816, 820 (Tex. 2024) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001)). “If the judgment clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties, the assessment is resolved in favor of finding finality, and the reviewing court cannot review the record.” Patel v. Nations Renovations, LLC, 661 S.W.3d 151, 154 (Tex. 2023). Thus, when, as here, an order includes unequivoca…
In the Interest of L.A.C.E., K.Y.C., I.A.C., and J.A.C., Minor Children v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…ed within ten days, the appeal shall be dismissed. Absent an appealable interlocutory order or final judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 319 n.1 (Tex. 2007); 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 establish jurisdiction or otherwise correct the defect in her notice of appeal, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a),…
Texas Cordia Construction, LLC v. Deanira Cantu, Pablo Rubalcaba, Domingo Pena, Jr., Janet Pena, Monica Cavazos, Juanita 'Janie' and Roman Rodriguez, 2026-06-04
…ade in its reply brief. Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001) (“[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.”). Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civi…
In the Estate of Betty Coleman v. the State of Texas2026-06-03
…“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all other relief not addressed herein is DENIED.” But this is simply a species of “Mother Hubbard” clause that cannot by itself indicate finality. Patel, 661 S.W.3d at 155 (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 203–04 (Tex. 2001)). Accordingly, we hold the March 17 order was not final and appellant has not shown that an interlocutory appeal is authorized from this order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM -2-…
In the Interest of A.D.A., a Child v. the State of Texas2026-06-01
…nt or order from which Appellant could appeal. “Unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments.” CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011); see Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Thus, on May 8, 2026, we issued an order requiring Appellant to file a written response, on or before May 21, 2026, showing by citation to the law and to the record, how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. We further required Appellant to file written proof from the trial court clerk showing either that he had paid or a…
Gary Taylor v. SeaHarbor Insurance and Mariam Abdalla2026-05-28
…lable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a). A final judgment is one that disposes of every pending claim and party or that “clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. Unless a statutory exception applies, an order that does not dispose of a…
J.E. Pendleton v. X. Corp., a Delaware Corporation Headquartered in Bastrop, Texas2026-05-28
…ses of every pending claim and party or (2) it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties, even if it does not actually do so.” In re Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205–06 (Tex. 2001). The trial court’s dismissal order does neither. 2 While the dismissal order disposes of all of Pendleton’s claims with prejudice, Appellee’s claim for attorney’s fees remains pending. See Carroll v. Metro Office Equip., Inc., No. 02-22-00087-CV, 2022 WL 1682156, at…
Legenia Napier v. 8555 Laurens Lane LLD DBA Algarita Lakeside2026-05-27
The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas v. the City of Austin and Austin Transit Partnership Local Government Corporation2026-05-22
…ad together, these rules indicate that the court of appeals could have abated the appeal, directed the district court to rule on the plea, and then treated the State’s previously filed notice of appeal as an appeal of that order. Cf. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205–06 (Tex. 2001) (recognizing that an appellate court may abate under Rule 27.2 to permit trial court clarification rather than dismiss); McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001). Whether by this mechanism or by mandamus, the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not leave appellate courts with no option other than dismissal when a trial…
In the Matter of the Marriage of Michael Adam Nelson and Jhoelayne Paixao Nelson and in the Interest of M.P.N. and M.A.P.N., Children v. the State of 2026-05-21
…ble order. “[A]n order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). Upon review of the record, the trial court entered an agreed final decree of divorce on June 11, 2025. On July 11, 2025, appellant filed a motion in opposition and motion for sanctions. On July 31, 2025, appellee filed an amended petition to modify the parent-child relationship. On November 5, 2025, the trial cour…
Michael Shomate and Brianne Shomate v. Servis One, Inc. D/B/A BSI Financial Services2026-05-21
…nse failed to identify a statute that authorizes an accelerated appeal at this time. Generally, in civil cases, appellate courts review only final judgments and interlocutory orders specifically made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Tex. R. App. P. 28.1. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 See id. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). APPEAL DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on May 20, 2026 Opinion Delivered May 21, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ. 1 We…
Timothy Brent Claiborne v. Lindy Gordon2026-05-21
…See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (Supp.). Unless we are given specific authority over an interlocutory appeal from a particular type of order, we have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195–96 (Tex. 2001), superseded by statute, Indus. Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refin. Co., 652 S.W.3d 11, 14 (Tex. 2022); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no writ) (per curiam). An order denying a summary judgment is generally not appealable because it is an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. Cincinna…
Cynthia Vela, Individually, Joel Vela, Individually, and as Co-Representatives of the Estate of Honesty Vela/GEC Transport Solutions, LLC v. GEC Trans2026-05-15
…provide an alternative ground to sustain a final judgment. See generally Matter of Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021) (“[T]he general rule . . . is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.”) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001)); see also Rancho Esperanza, 488 S.W.3d at 363–66 (holding that alternative ground sufficed to support final summary judgment). 8 On this point, GEC asserts that the trial court “made no ‘withdrawal’ notation next to its denial of GEC’s [m]otion as to [the Velas’] claims for Ricky Barrera’s negligence and GEC’s negligent maint…
Stellar Virtual Texas v. Sandra Aguilar2026-05-14
…isdiction to review the trial court’s January 21, 2026 order. In general, we only have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments. City of Houston v. Est. of Jones, 388 S.W.3d 663, 666 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001) (“[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.”); see also In re Estrada, 492 S.W.3d 42,…
Vickie Jo Perry and Ricky C. Loving v. Addie Jo Perry2026-05-13
…S.W.2d 440, 443–44 (Tex. 1993)). In general, a party can appeal only a final judgment, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here. Sabre Travel Int’l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. 2019); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final when it “actually disposes of every pending claim and party or . . . it clearly unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties, even if it does not actually do so.” In re Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021) (citing Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205). “If the judgment…
NC an MI, LLC v. EGR Construction, Inc2026-05-12
…tory orders the Legislature has expressly permitted appeal. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011). None of the orders appellant is attempting to appeal are final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200–01 (Tex. 2001) (holding that judgment or order is final for purpose of appeal if it unequivocally states an intention to issue final judgment or if it disposes of every pending claim and party); CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 447 (permitting appeal of interlocutory orders only if permitted by statute). Because appellant has not established t…
In the Matter of the Estate of Martha Miles v. the State of Texas2026-05-07
…cause the appeal is moot, we lack jurisdiction over it. See Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) (recognizing that “a court cannot decide a case that has become moot during the pendency of the litigation”); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (“[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions [for certain interlocutory orders], is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment.”); In re R.S., No. 02-20-00108-CV, 2020 WL 1949023, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 23, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (noting that, because trial court vacated…
Joshua Calloway v. Mark Gritton and Linda Gritton2026-04-30
…risdictional gaps.3 Therefore, our initial concern remains, and we will dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments or interlocutory orders authorized by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 200 (Tex. 2001). Absent a conventional trial on the merits, a judgment is final if it either (1) states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties or (2) actually disposes of all claims and parties then before the court, regardless of its language. Id. at 192–93. In determining whether an or…